Prayers

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded at any point, I will immediately adjourn the House.

Lord Speaker’s Statement
 - Announcement

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Speaker I would like to make a short Statement about the plans for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June 2022, which will mark 70 years of her reign. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such a historic occasion, never before seen in the history of our country, should be marked in a fitting way. Today, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will make a Statement in the House of Commons about the national plans, and I would like to take a moment to update the House about what will happen here in Parliament.
Noble Lords will recall that, for Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, Parliament gifted a stained-glass window in Westminster Hall. For this Platinum Jubilee, I can announce that a cross-party, bicameral project board has been established to decide what the next gift will be and to deliver it in 2022. As was the case in 2012, the right honourable Michael Ellis QC MP, the Solicitor-General for England and Wales, has been asked by both Speakers to manage this project and I extend our sincere thanks to him for his efforts.
As was the case for the Diamond Jubilee gift, no public funds will be spent to purchase the gift. The gift will be paid for from personal contributions made by Members of both Houses and a further announcement about the gift and how noble Lords can contribute will be made in the new year.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers, too, are brief.

Covid-19: Levelling-up Agenda
 - Question

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the consequences of their policies in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic on their levelling up agenda in England.

Baroness Penn: The Government recognise the significant impact of Covid-19 on every region and nation of the UK and remain committed to levelling up opportunity across the country. In recognition of this, we have announced unprecedented support for business, workers and local authorities across the UK, including support for 2.7 million people through the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, and have extended the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has already supported 9.6 billion jobs and provided over £62 billion in business support loans.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Northern Health Science Alliance reported two days ago that Covid has made economic inequalities worse, with reductions in mental well-being in the north costing the economy £5 billion a year, and that more people in the north have died. The Northern Powerhouse Partnership is calling for a northern economic recovery plan. The LGA says that in the north, where core services have already been cut by up to half in some of the poorest areas, more cuts will just make regional inequalities worse. South Yorkshire’s mayor, Dan Jarvis, wrote yesterday in the House magazine:
“The brutal reality is that the North is now on course for levelling down, not levelling up.”
Is it not now time for a huge transfer to the north of resources of all kinds and the powers to use them?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I think that we have seen a significant transfer of power to the north; Dan Jarvis, the mayor in Yorkshire, is an example of that. The Government are absolutely committed to levelling up and to reducing this inequality. That is why, for example, we have the £3.6 billion Towns Fund, which supports at least 45 places in the northern powerhouse and 30 places in the Midlands engine region.

Baroness Quin: My Lords, I ask the Minister to make clear to her colleague the former Northern Powerhouse Minister in another place the huge contribution that culture has made to the regeneration of Gateshead and Salford, for example, and that football and culture are not mutually exclusive—it is possible to support both. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will soon publish a strategy for levelling up and, in the light of Covid, have the Government been restructured in order to tackle the problems for the north post Covid and the implementation of such a levelling-up strategy?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the government structures in place at the moment are focused on tackling Covid, but support for levelling up and recovery  across the country is at the heart of everything that the Government do. It was at the heart of the Chancellor’s plan for jobs, announced in the summer, which includes a Getting Building Fund of up to £1 billion to support local economic projects to get jobs and recovery back in local economies.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the tiered system of local virus control led to political turf wars. This simply divides communities, as was seen with the handling of the Greater Manchester case. Can the Minister reassure the House that, in future, changes will not simply be imposed on historically deprived areas of the north of England with last-minute government press announcements at midnight and that local elected representative will be fully involved in the decision-making process and therefore share ultimate decision-making?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Government have been committed to having local leaders involved in decision-making at every step of the process. That has sometimes led to a more complicated process, which I think the noble Lord has pointed to, but we always endeavour to have joint decision-making wherever possible.

Baroness Pidding: My Lords, it is clear that the Covid-19 pandemic is having a huge economic impact on businesses and livelihoods throughout the country. However, some regions are having to live through tougher and longer restrictions than others. I know that this Government are committed to their levelling-up agenda. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what extra support will be given to these hardest-hit communities?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, since the pandemic, the Government have provided £6.4 billion of additional funding to local authorities, but, in addition to this, for those areas that faced restrictions prior to the second lockdown, extra support was put in place for businesses that were closed or had their business severely affected by those restrictions. Local authorities got additional funding for grants to support the local economy.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, rumours emanating from who knows where in government are talking about cutting back HS2 phase 2b—the bit that goes from Birmingham to Leeds. This would mean that the journey times from Toton would go from 27 to 85 minutes for Leeds and from 93 to 106 minutes for Newcastle. How is this sort of thing compatible with government protestations about levelling up?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I do not pay too much attention to rumours circulating, and the Government remain committed to the High Speed 2 project.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: What is the noble Baroness’s assessment of the Treasury’s 80:20 rule, which decrees that 80% of funding for Homes England goes to the areas where homes are most unaffordable?  This naturally ends up being the south and south-east of England. Will she accept that, when 46 of the red wall seats are only eligible for 20% of the funding for homes, this creates a blatant unfairness for the north? Can she tell the House what Government are doing to resolve this?

Baroness Penn: I reassure the noble Baroness that funds from the £400 million brownfield fund announced in the Budget will unlock up to 24,000 high-quality homes across the country, with 90% allocated immediately to seven mayoral combined authorities to allow them to begin delivering projects that will benefit local areas.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, post Covid, there will be cities like mine—Leicester—that will be looking for investors to come and invest, given the loss of jobs? Does she agree that digital platforms are the key to getting most of our young people skilled? Will she encourage businesses, particularly disruptors from the digital platforms, to come and look at cities like Leicester to skill up and invest in young people and others?

Baroness Penn: I absolutely agree with my noble friend, and one of the things that the Government are doing to support digital skills is setting up a limited series of digital boot camp trailblazers to support local regions and employers to fill in-demand vacancies. We will look to roll out a national programme next year that will learn the lessons from this.

Baroness Blower: The Alliance for Full Employment and Resolution Foundation research shows that there are now around 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds not in work. The alliance is predicting a need for 1.5 million training places by the end of the academic year. The Kickstart Scheme will not help anyone under 25 who has lost their job at the end of October, as they will not be eligible for help until next May. Does the Minister agree that the extension to the furlough scheme offers a breathing space to redesign the Kickstart Scheme in order to provide meaningful work or training in conjunction with local authorities and employers? Will the Government meet the Alliance for Full Employment to discuss its plan to get Britain levelling up?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Kickstart Scheme is specifically designed to support young people at risk of long-term unemployment, but that is not the only support that the Government are putting in place for those who may have lost their jobs or are struggling to find work, having finished their studying or training. For example, we have put £1.2 billion in to significantly expand and enhance our work-search support, including doubling the number of work coaches. That kind of support, alongside support for skills and apprenticeships, is available to young people in advance of them being at risk of longer-term unemployment.

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted: My Lords, Covid has accelerated modern trends such as remote working, and there is a great deal of education and  training needed for that. Should levelling up not include a focus on digital trends, aiming to leap-frog post-industrial areas into the new era of work?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting digital trends and jobs. I just mentioned one of the training schemes that we have in place to support that.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the time allotted for this Question has now elapsed.

Sustainable Development Goals
 - Question

Lord Collins of Highbury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office plans to develop a strategy for how they plan to meet the Sustainable Development Goals; and when any such strategy will be published.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, the UK is committed to the sustainable development goals. The aims of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office—working to end extreme poverty, tackling the climate crisis, protecting our values and promoting sustainable growth—all contribute to meeting the goals. The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy will further define the Government’s ambition for the UK’s role in the world and shape the FCDO’s objectives and priorities.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, Covid shows the need for increased action by the global community towards achieving the SDGs and delivering on the commitment to “leave no one behind”. Prioritising the SDGs domestically as well as internationally is vital, as they provide a ready-made road map to recovery. What are the Government doing to establish a coherent cross-government strategy for achieving the SDGs and to improve engagement with stakeholders in line with the commitments that the noble Baroness made in last year’s VNR? On the transparency of aid spending, will she guarantee that ICAI remains independent of government and accountable to Parliament?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the SDGs provide a valuable framework to help us build back better in Covid-19 recovery. We are committed to implementing the SDGs and we have been proactive in our response to the pandemic. The SDGs have an important role to play, both here in the UK and in our international work. We will continue our regular engagement with stakeholders. On ICAI, I can confirm that it will remain independent.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: My Lords, thanks largely to global efforts and UK leadership, recent research shows that the global burden of disease on women has shifted significantly from maternal mortality and morbidity to non-communicable diseases. In particular, the statistics on mental health are distressing. Depression is predicted to be the second-leading cause of global disability by 2020 and it is twice as common and more persistent in women. Dementia is also twice as common in women globally. Women and children are by far the most affected by violence and disaster, with post-traumatic and neurodevelopmental disorders still widely underdiagnosed. Despite all this, mental health accounts for less than 3% of global health budgets. In order to meet SDGs 3 and 5, can the Minister say how much ODA spending will go to women’s NCDs and mental health budgets, in particular?

Baroness Sugg: I agree with my noble friend that mental health is a major concern that affects women around the world. This summer we published our approach paper on mental health and psychosocial disabilities. It clearly outlines our ambition to achieve an integrated and comprehensive rights-based approach to mental health support. It noted the significant gender disparity. It is important that while we continue to support our work on ending preventable deaths, we also address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases.

Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick: My Lords, given Brexit, can the Minister inform the House of how much UK aid that had gone through the EU will now be exclusively available for UK priorities, and can the likely billions be invested with the Global Partnership for Education, advancing girls’ education, of which I am a champion?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we are indeed supporting the Global Partnership for Education. We look forward to co-hosting the replenishment conference with the Government of Kenya next year and we will announce our support for GPE in due course.

Baroness Goudie: [Inaudible.] the UN sustainable goals is threatened by lack of investment in some of the emerging markets in Africa, South America and the Middle East. Is it possible for us to concentrate more investment in this area?

Baroness Sugg: [Inaudible.] and we will continue to do so. I point the noble Baroness towards the UK-Africa Investment Summit, which we held at the end of last year and which set out what further moves we will take to increase our investment within Africa.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, the monitoring the sustainable development goals programme is a joint project between the FCDO and the UN Statistics Division. It supports 20 countries to feed data into the global set of 172 indicators. This is essential data if we are to meet the commitment to leave no one behind. The programme is successful and scores an A. Can the Minister say whether it will continue after May 2021?

Baroness Sugg: I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of investing in data. I am afraid I cannot commit to future spending in 2021 at this stage, but I agree that data is key to understanding progress against the SDGs and helping to identify where further action is needed. We will continue our partnership with the UN by ensuring that we provide the best data we can for countries around the world so that they can judge their own progress against the SDGs.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, as a consequence of the Courtauld commitments, the Government have a partial strategy at least—one for the delivery of environmental goals in SDG 12. However, progress is slow and not on target for the reduction of food waste or emissions associated with the production and consumption of food, and we have no road map for the delivery of a water security target. The strategy is fine but what is being done to make sure that the goals are kept under proper review and, more importantly, realigned when necessary?

Baroness Sugg: We are, of course, committed to a sustainable and resilient recovery as we build back better from Covid-19. We look forward to hosting the COP 26 conference next November, where will be able to focus on all the issues that the noble Lord has raised.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, who exactly are the poorest of the poor who must not be left behind? Will the FCDO identify them? Are they the ones without food, water or healthcare? Are they refugees? Will the UK focus SDGs more on those suffering from endemic poverty, such as victims of slavery or Dalits who have to clean latrines day after day in India? I think the public would like to know.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, one of the core missions of the FCDO is to end extreme poverty, while also ensuring that all our programmes are reaching the bottom billion—the people most in need of the support that we give through our development programmes. We will continue to develop our programmes, making sure that we are reaching those most in need so that we do not leave anyone behind.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, the World Bank has said that, post recovery, we will need to reschedule debts, tackle climate change more energetically and promote livelihoods. Do the Government agree with that assessment? If they do, will they still ensure that we prioritise gender equality and poverty reduction in achieving those objectives?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we agree with that assessment and I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to prioritise tackling gender inequality.

Lord Vaizey of Didcot: My Lords, the extraordinary donation this week by Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing of £8 million to the British Museum’s Endangered Material Knowledge Programme is a reminder of the international work that our museums  do around the world, helping developing nations preserve and protect their heritage. Will the Minister assure me that culture will be at the heart of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s work on sustainable development goals?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that culture is an important export, of which the UK is very proud, and we will continue to support culture wherever we are able to.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, the Minister said yesterday that girls’ education is the top priority for our overseas aid but girls cannot stay in education if they are married off early with no access to contraception because they then spend the rest of their lives having more and more babies. Surely strengthening the availability of family planning and sexual and reproductive health services must be the top priority for overseas aid to achieve the sustainable development goals, especially during the pandemic.

Baroness Sugg: Girls’ education is indeed a key priority for the FCDO but so is continuing our support for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We are the world’s second-largest global bilateral donor on family planning. I agree with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that girls and women have access to family planning so that they can continue their education, contribute to the economy and decide how and when to have children and how many to have.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford.

Universal Credit
 - Question

Lord Woolley of Woodford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain the £20 a week increase in Universal Credit (1) for the duration of, and (2) after, the COVID-19 pandemic.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: We are having ongoing discussions with the Treasury on the best ways to support people through Covid-19 and beyond. We will of course update Parliament on any future decisions on benefit spending when they are made. Claimants can be assured, though, that the Government are fully committed to supporting those who rely on the welfare system and to ensuring it continues to provide a safety net to those who need it.

Lord Woolley of Woodford: My Lords, I thank the Government for extending the £20 universal credit increase and getting behind—even turbocharging —Marcus Rashford’s initiative to feed poorer children,  many of whom will be black, Asian or minority ethnic. Does the Minister agree with me and the organisation Action for Children about the urgent need to develop and implement a UK-wide child poverty strategy that sets targets for its reduction and eradication?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Lord’s acknowledgement of the Government’s activities in this field is appreciated. We are very pleased that we have been able to implement our latest package and we acknowledge Marcus Rashford’s passion and commitment, which the Government share. I will need to take the strategy the noble Lord raised back to the department. That is not me trying to avoid the issue; I will do that, and I will come back to the noble Lord in writing.

Bishop of Durham: Families in receipt of legacy benefits, such as employment and support allowance, did not benefit from the very welcome £20 a week uplift in benefits. These people are just as likely to be affected by the financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and include many disabled people. Will the Government extend the increase in benefits to include those in receipt of legacy benefits, as recommended by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Keep the Lifeline campaign?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The right revered Prelate raises an issue that many people are raising. The answer I have, in the politest terms, is that we have no plans to increase legacy benefits further. They were increased by 1.7% in April 2020 as part of the annual uprating exercise.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, in addition to those receiving universal credit, many more are in work but on very low earnings—all credit to them. Are the Government able to give any help to them?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The Government recently increased the national living wage to £8.72 per hour, which means the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage have increased by nearly £3,700 since 2016. The Spring Budget confirmed a tax cut for 31 million working people, and other tax changes make basic rate taxpayers over £1,200 better off. We have been able to extend the holiday activities and food programme with £220 million, and the Covid winter grant scheme has £170 million, so be in no doubt: the Government do care and do take action.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, every citizen, whether in paid work or not, deserves an income that allows a decent standard of living. We should not be permitting a system where discomfort and, indeed, poverty are built in. You cannot live on the standard allowance—no one can—and that is apart from delays in payment. How can the Minister possibly defend universal credit, even as a viable safety net, when demand for food banks is at a record high and homelessness is rapidly rising, even with the extra £20 a week?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I understand the noble Earl’s point, but as I said, we have put out a raft of additional support. I could read it out, but it would  take the whole 10 minutes, if not longer. I understand his point, but the Government are taking action to make life better for people.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I thank the Minister for recognising the important contribution of the £20 a week increase. Does she also recognise that the increase in housing benefit rates has made a significant contribution to reducing poverty? Does she agree that we should recognise the contribution made by the key workers in the DWP? The case managers, job coaches and all the staff have coped with a 600% increase in universal credit claimants since March, of which there are now 8.2 million. We should also recognise the contribution of its chief executive, Neil Couling, who has given dedicated and inspirational leadership to ensure a successful digitalisation programme which enabled the DWP to cope with the massive increase in claimants.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Lord acknowledges the significant increase in universal credit claimants, and I understand the importance of the issues he raises. He also acknowledged the key people at the DWP, not least Neil Couling and the whole executive team that works with him, who have done a sterling job and will continue to do so.

Baroness Janke: I, like other noble Lords, welcome the retention of the £20 a week increase, which will indeed help many people. However, is the Minister aware of the report by the charity Scope on disability and the coronavirus, which found that many disabled people are feeling forgotten and experiencing isolation, a lack of access to basic essentials, delays in receiving benefits and medical care, and poor access to care and support? Will she assure us that the Government will meet with disability charities to ensure that all people with disabilities, and their families, receive the care and support they need during the coronavirus? Will she report back to Parliament on this?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue of disabled people and the challenges they face. The noble Baroness will also know that my natural way of working is to agree to these things and to report back. The only thing I can offer her today is that I will talk to the Minister for Disabled People and let him know what it is she would like to do. I will report back to her.

Baroness Wyld: My Lords, I too welcome and acknowledge all the support measures the Government have put in place, but can my noble friend say a little more about the evidence base? How are the Government assessing whether the measures they have taken are having the desired impact among families on the lowest incomes?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Baroness raises the important issue of evidence. Analysis shows that the Government’s interventions have supported the poorest working households, as a proportion of  February income, the most, with those in the bottom 10% of the income distribution seeing no reduction in their income.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, because the £20 uplift was not extended to legacy benefits, an adult on universal credit is given £94 a week to live on but her neighbour on JSA or ESA gets just £74 a week. The Minister told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that there were no plans to change this, but she did not tell him why. Could she please explain to the House and the 2 million people on JSA and ESA why they do not deserve the same help when their food and bills cost every bit as much as those for people on universal credit?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I note the point that the noble Baroness makes and it is well made, but as I said, the Government’s position is that we have no plans to increase legacy benefits further. People on legacy benefits can transfer to universal credit and they can do a calculation before they transfer to make sure they will be better off.

Baroness Boycott: Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on coming some of the way towards Marcus Rashford’s and other food campaigners’ demands. This weekly increase of £20 does pay for the bulk of a single person’s grocery budget and is one of the things keeping a lot of people out of food banks, although, as my noble friend Lord Clancarty pointed out, these figures continue to rise. It seems extremely ironic that the Government have decided to support food banks and declare that they are an essential part of our system when we should be working to abolish them, yet they are contemplating taking away this small increase of £20 and, as was just mentioned, not affording it to people on JSA or ESA. I come back to my noble friend Lord Woolley of Woodford’s original Question and ask the Minister: what plans do the Government have to keep this increase for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic and after it? It does make a difference.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: As I already said to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, we are having discussions with the Treasury on the best way to support people both through Covid-19 and beyond. As soon as those decisions are made, Parliament will be advised.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed and we therefore move to the fourth Question.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Access for Goods
 - Question

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of negotiations with the European Union in relation to ensuring unfettered access for goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Lord True: My Lords, we have been unequivocal in our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK market. We are delivering on that commitment in full, including through the draft statutory instrument we have laid to guarantee it from 1 January and the protections we wish to provide in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which, regrettably, your Lordships opposed.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, supermarket chains and other business consortia in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned that goods supply lines will be cut off to them from 1 January 2021. Will the Minister, along with ministerial colleagues, and working with EU negotiators, ensure that flexibilities are built into food supply lines so that Northern Ireland businesses and consumers can continue to enjoy a wide range of choice and affordability with respect to all food products?

Lord True: The noble Baroness makes an important point. The UK Government recognise, of course, the unique position of authorised traders, such as supermarkets, with stable supply chains and comprehensive oversight of warehousing and distribution, moving pre-packaged products for retail solely in Northern Ireland. We are continuing to pursue specific solutions for this trade.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, many of us in this House and elsewhere have long believed that the Government’s claims that the Prime Minister’s deal will produce unfettered trade are, quite frankly, delusional. Now that the Government have recognised that, instead of planning to breach our international obligations, would they not do better to look at constructive alternatives? For instance, what consideration has been given to the sensible proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and his parliamentary colleagues, which might just get the Government off the hook?

Lord True: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the principle of unfettered access, and its legislative underpinning, was one of the key components of the re-formation of the Northern Ireland Executive. The UK Government are seeking to fulfil an obligation, and I regret very much that your Lordships, including the noble Lord, voted against it.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, the sheer scale of the burden on businesses created by the wholly inadequate preparations for the wider border procedures by the Government was laid bare by the National Audit Office report on Friday. Regarding Northern Ireland, food and drink producers still do not yet know whether goods going to Northern Ireland will have to have EU labels, UK labels or both. Can the Minister be clear, with six weeks to go, what labels will food and drinks going to Northern Ireland from GB have to have, UK or EU? What contingency procedures are in place if the Government cannot be clear to businesses?

Lord True: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his very specific point about labelling. Of course, I acknowledge that there are ongoing discussions in the joint committee, and that that is an issue. But the Government have a range of measures, already taken and in hand, which we have discussed with business, to facilitate GB-NI movement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, but is not unfettered trade access what we want, what we have always wanted all along and what the withdrawal agreement guarantees, both for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—with a few minor checks—and of course trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? We are committed to all these things. Does my noble friend agree that, if President-elect Biden seeks reassurance against the destabilisation of the Northern Ireland peace process—reassurance that we all want—it is the European Union authorities and negotiators in Brussels who are his best port of call and whom he should be ringing?

Lord True: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord into international diplomacy. What I will say is what I said with some force to the House on Monday: this Government are absolutely dedicated to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That agreement has east-west as well as north-south aspects, and the rejection of the unfettered access commitment by your Lordships’ House was deeply unhelpful.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: My Lords, to go back to the Question that the noble Baroness asked, I am sure the whole House understands the concerns about supply to retailers in Northern Ireland, well expressed in the joint letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, the NAO report last Friday shows where the problem lies, when it confirms that the new border control posts we are constructing at Larne, Warrenpoint and Belfast will not be ready. What interim plans have the Government in mind to ensure that supply to retailers in Northern Ireland continues unaffected?

Lord True: My Lords, I gave an assurance on supermarkets and food supplies in an earlier answer. The Government are constantly, on a daily basis, monitoring and considering the maintenance of all links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and have every confidence that they will be secure.

Lord Monks: We have long known that Brexit, plus a failure to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement, would lead either to new and more border arrangements in Ireland, and so to a likely breach of the Good Friday agreement, or, alternatively, to new barriers and obstacles down the Irish Sea, so threatening the integrity of the UK. At the general election, the Prime Minister assured us that neither of these unattractive options would be necessary, but does the Minister accept that, unless the Government find a third way, they will have failed their own tests and failed the country? What is this elusive third way?

Lord True: My Lords, there is one way: support for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I trust very much that when the unfettered access provisions come back to this House, the Labour Party will support them.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are all aware of the extensive movement of animals across the internal Irish border and across the Irish Sea, and the extensive movement also of milk and milk products. If there is to be unfettered access across the Irish Sea, do the Government envisage that there will have to be checks at what will now become the EU’s external border? What progress, in that case, has been made towards recruiting the vets and inspectors needed to enforce the checks required there?

Lord True: My Lords, work is under way, as noble Lords have raised before, in seeking to recruit vets and, in other areas of this policy, customs agents. That work is ongoing. We are hopeful that we will achieve the desired end.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: My Lords, earlier this week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland jointly wrote to the EU, imploring it to act sensibly and pragmatically to prevent any threat of disruption to food supplies to Northern Ireland. This is about defining goods at risk. We are in the ridiculous situation that the EU, unless it comes to a sensible arrangement, will ensure that all goods coming into Northern Ireland are goods at risk. Tins of beans on a Tesco lorry destined for Belfast, Portadown or Banbridge will be deemed at risk of being smuggled over the border by the supermarket at Dundalk. How ridiculous. If the EU does not see sense, will the Minister undertake that the necessary fallback, safety-net provisions will be there to safeguard Northern Ireland consumers—nationalist and unionist—as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have said?

Lord True: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government certainly take extremely seriously the need to ensure the security of this trade. I agree with the noble Lord that the protocol obliges both the UK and the EU to seek to streamline trade between GB and Northern Ireland.

Lord Lilley: Will my noble friend gently remind the European Union that any obstacles to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be contrary both to Article 6 of the withdrawal agreement and to the Act of Union, which is a fundamental part of our legal order which the European Union has pledged to uphold? I hope and expect that the EU will agree arrangements to prevent such obstacles, because to refuse such agreement would constitute bad faith, justifying the activation of those parts of the internal market Bill that I hope the other House will reinstall and this House will duly accept.

Lord True: My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend said. I underline his last remarks: it is astonishing that Keir Starmer required the Labour Party in this House to vote against a legitimate legal commitment to unfettered access.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Sitting suspended.

Hong Kong: Legislative Council
 - Private Notice Question

Baroness Northover: Asked by Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that four pro-democracy legislators have been dismissed from the Hong Kong Legislative Council with immediate effect.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, yesterday was another sad day for the people of Hong Kong. China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress imposed new restrictions, meaning that any Hong Kong legislator deemed to be supporting independence, refusing to recognise China’s sovereignty, seeking to support foreign forces’ interference or endangering Hong Kong’s national security would be disqualified. This decision led to the immediate removal of four elected members of the Legislative Council. Beijing’s actions breach both China’s commitment that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under the Sino-British joint declaration.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, this is immensely serious for Hong Kong. What have the Government said directly to the Chinese Government about this major breach, as the Minister described it, of the Sino-British joint declaration? Will they consider taking China to the International Court of Justice for breaching its obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or has the United Kingdom undermined its ability to do that by threatening to break international law when it suits us?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: On the noble Baroness’s second question, we remain strong supporters of the ICJ but, as she will know, going to the ICJ requires the agreement of both parties. I very much doubt that China would do so. On the specific measures that we have taken since China’s action, only an hour or so ago, the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the FCDO to meet the Permanent Under-Secretary. I have not seen the read-out of that but we have taken immediate steps there.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords—[Inaudible.]

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: Lord McKenzie, we are struggling to hear you. Could you lean in a little closer to the mic?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I will; I am sorry. China’s dismissal of four members of the Legislative Council underlined the worst fears about the national   security law and its impact on freedoms of expression and judicial independence in Hong Kong. The new law, which apparently applies to everyone everywhere in the world, is generating alarm among universities with students who will return to Hong Kong at some stage and could face the risk of arrest. It makes a nonsense of “one country, two systems”. What representations are being made to the Chinese ambassador about the disqualification of the four pro-democracy lawmakers? What progress is being made in identifying senior Chinese Government officials who have committed serious human rights abuses?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We have summoned the Chinese ambassador to register our deep concern on this issue. The noble Lord talked about all members of the Legislative Council; four members were suspended and removed while they were in the Chamber. Others have left the council in solidarity.
On identification, the noble Lord was, I think, alluding to global human rights sanctions. As I have said before, we cannot speculate on future sanctions that we may apply through that regime. Nevertheless, since the national security laws initiated the continuing suppression of freedoms in Hong Kong, we have aired—and continue to air—our deep concerns.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: I gently remind noble Lords to keep their questions and answers concise.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: What course can Her Majesty’s Government follow that is likely to improve the situation for freedom in Hong Kong?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble and learned friend raises an important issue. On 6 October, 39 countries issued a joint statement at the UN General Assembly expressing deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, building on the Human Rights Council statement in June. We believe that this joint approach with other international partners is the best approach in pressing China to live up to its obligations.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I declare my interests as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. What steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate an international response to the purge of democrats and the dismantling of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong? Does this include an international contact group, mobilising the G7, developing an alliance of democracies to co-ordinate targeted sanctions and a lifeboat rescue package, and working for the creation of a mechanism at the United Nations for a special rapporteur?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: As I have already said, we are leading the international response on Hong Kong. An increasing number of countries are joining statements through UN human rights bodies, which underscores the success of this approach. We have  no plans to establish an international contact group. The Foreign Secretary is leading the way on this issue as a priority.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, the Government have provided a way for citizens holding a BNO passport to take steps to come here. A high proportion of people will miss out on this scheme, particularly those born after 1997. What other immigration measures have the Government considered in the interests of safety for the people of Hong Kong?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise BNO status. It will open for applications at the end of January 2021. On the specifics of people born after a given date, certainly where they are connected to those who qualify for BNO status, our policy is not to separate families—they will also be included in the scheme.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, given the clear breach of the joint declaration and international law, how can we enlist support from European Union countries when the Government persist with Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill? Is this not a clear illustration of the Government’s chickens coming home to roost?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I assure the noble Lord that there are no chickens in my response, per se. On this specific issue, the fact that Germany delivered the statement at the UN Third Committee underlines the strong support in the European Union for our position on Hong Kong.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about his and the United Kingdom’s efforts at the United Nations and building support, but we obviously need to do more. The Minister failed to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about how we may build a better consensus through the use of the scheduled G7 meeting. Can he give a more specific answer?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Of course. We will continue to press this case, whether through the G7 or other multilateral fora. We are achieving success; I am sure that all noble Lords will acknowledge that the fact that we have seen an incremental increase in the number of countries supporting the UK’s position on Hong Kong illustrates the success of this policy.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in view of this scandalous behaviour by the Chinese Government and their rejection of the criticism of western Governments, is it not time to encourage people not to support Chinese exports, as their economy is all-important to the Chinese?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, we have a strategic relationship with China. We continue to wish to strengthen that, but in a very clear-eyed way, and where there are abuses of human rights, whether in Hong Kong or indeed in mainland China, we will call them out.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The offence of the four lawmakers who were expelled without legal process from LegCo—two barristers, an accountant and a medical consultant—was that they had allegedly supported requests to the US to impose sanctions on China for its interference in Hong Kong. What about this country? The United Kingdom signed the bilateral joint declaration, which by Article 3 guarantees the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong citizens. Does the Minister agree that we have a moral and imperative duty to take action now, not just to wring our hands—to impose sanctions or to take China to the International Court of Justice, as my noble friend suggested earlier?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the noble Lord raises Article 3, and that is exactly what we are pressing: that China must uphold its international obligations. I have already covered the point on the ICJ; we will continue to work on a multilateral basis and bilaterally in raising this issue with Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong special administrative region as well.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, what assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact that Beijing’s purging of pro-democracy voices in the legislature will have on the rule of law in Hong Kong? Does he share my concern about the threat to the continued independence of the judiciary, and do the Government have anything specific in mind to seek to avoid that?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I totally concur with the noble Baroness. There has been an increasing decline, and this is the second major shift this year with the introduction of the national security law and the suspension of democratically elected legislators. She raises an important point about the independence of the judiciary. Again, the national security law raises real concerns, as under it the Chief Executive now has the right to appoint judges as well. We will continue to raise that issue and our concern with China directly.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, this is an extremely serious development and I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government are working hard with international partners to ensure that democracy and human rights—and indeed freedom of speech—are maintained in Hong Kong. I have previously raised the fact that two crucial events are coming up where China has a leading role to play. As well as the COP next year there is the equally important meeting on the Convention on Biological Diversity, which China is hosting. Does my noble friend think that the prospects of these two global events are in any way endangered by these events in Hong Kong?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, China is an important partner and my noble friend is quite right to raise the two events coming up next year. We continue to work strategically and importantly on the priorities of the environment as a key issue in the lead-up to COP 26. However, events like this indeed hinder the relationship that we are seeking to build bilaterally with China.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred to people buying Chinese products. That is a large part of our retail sector but of course our financial sector, the City of London, is tightly enmeshed with banks that have expressed support for the Chinese government position and are heavily involved in the Hong Kong economy. What are the Government’s plans to tackle that issue?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as I have already said, trade with China is important, but we must do so in a manner which reflects the importance that the Government attach to human rights. The noble Baroness raises the issue of financial services. It is for companies to make key decisions, but we remain very much committed that where there is a usurping of human rights we will raise those issues, whether that is happening in Hong Kong or mainland China.

Lord Hain: My Lords, given the serious and continuing deterioration of human rights in Hong Kong and China, which government policy has been most effective: David Cameron’s toadying or Boris Johnson’s bombast?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: That is an interesting question for the noble Lord to put to a Minister who has served under both Prime Ministers. We live in the present, and that is where we need to focus. We have seen a systematic abuse in recent years in mainland China, whether we are talking about the Uighurs or indeed other human rights abuses, which we have often debated in your Lordships’ House. Currently, the steps that have been taken this year alone in Hong Kong illustrate a hardening of the stance and a real test of the Sino-British joint agreement. We will continue to press for that and press China to stand up for its international obligations. However, at the same time, we will continue to raise the bar against the usurping of human rights, be it in Hong Kong or indeed in China.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the brevity of their questions and answers. All supplementary answers have been asked.

Business of the House
 - Motion on Standing Orders

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 17 November to allow the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Motion agreed.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
 - Order of Consideration Motion

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 to 30, Schedule 3, Clauses 31 to 50, Title.
Motion agreed.

Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
 - Motion to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 September be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 November.
Motion agreed.

Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
 - Motion to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Motion agreed.

Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
 - Motion to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Motion agreed.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 11 November.
“As we look ahead to the winter months, it is vital that we work together to prevent increases in homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have set out  unprecedented support on this issue, dedicating over £700 million to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping this year alone. Our work on rough sleeping has been shown not only to be world leading but to have saved hundreds of lives. We are dedicated to continuing to protect vulnerable people in this period of restrictions and through the winter months.
We used the summer to work with local authorities on individual local plans for the coming months. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the Protect programme—the next step in our ongoing, targeted support for rough sleepers. That will provide a further £15 million, ensuring that support is in place for areas that need it most and addressing the housing and health challenges for rough sleepers during this period of national restrictions. That is on top of the £10 million cold weather fund, available to all councils to provide rough sleepers with safe accommodation over the coming months. That means that all local areas will be eligible for support this winter. It builds on the success of the ongoing Everyone In campaign in September. We have successfully supported over 29,000 people, with over 10,000 people in emergency accommodation. Nearly 19,000 people have been provided with settled accommodation or move-on support. We continue to help to move people on from emergency accommodation with the Next Steps accommodation programme.
On 17 September, we announced NSAP allocations to local authorities, to pay for immediate support and to ensure that people do not return to the streets, and £91.5 million was allocated to 274 councils across England. On 29 October, we announced allocations to local partners to deliver long-term move-on accommodation. More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers across the country have been approved, subject to due diligence, backed by more than £150 million. We are committed to tackling homelessness and firmly believe that no one should be without a roof over their head.
Throughout the pandemic, we have established an unprecedented package of support to protect renters, which remains in place. That includes legislating through the Coronavirus Act 2020 on delays as to when landlords can evict tenants and a six-month stay on possession proceedings in court. We have quickly and effectively introduced more than £9 billion of measures in 2020-21 that benefit those facing financial disruption during the current situation. The measures include increasing universal and working tax credit by £1,040 a year for 12 months and significant investment in local housing allowance of nearly £1 billion. As further support for renters this winter, we have asked bailiffs not to carry out evictions during national restrictions in England, except in the most serious of circumstances. As the pandemic evolves, we will continue working closely with local authorities, the sector and across government to support the most vulnerable from this pandemic. These measures further demonstrate our commitment to assist the most vulnerable in society.”

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests. We are in a second pandemic, the days are getting shorter, the nights are getting longer and colder, but we have a squabbling No. 10 and a shambolic Government,  with no homelessness tsar in post. Can the noble Lord tell the House why there is such a poverty of ambition to prevent homelessness and keep people off the streets this winter? Where is the noble Lord’s zeal? Where is the fire in his belly to get homelessness finally sorted out?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, families do tend to squabble a bit, but that has nothing to do with the massive ambition we have for ending rough sleeping. Some £700 million has been committed to end rough sleeping with a world-class policy, a programme in three stages, and the recent announcement of a further stage of the Protect programme. Our swift action has been praised by leading stakeholders, including Shelter, Crisis, St Mungo’s and Thames Reach. The policy speaks for itself: lives are being changed for the better and I see that my colleague, Minister Tolhurst, continues to lead in this regard, under the benign direction of the Secretary of State.

Baroness Grender: My Lords, in the spring the Everyone In scheme was a success, but post Dame Louise Casey—now the noble Baroness, Lady Casey—who is leading and taking up that role now, not at ministerial level but in Whitehall? If emergency shelters were deemed unsafe then, will the Minister confirm that they will not be used now? With so many families who rent threatened with homelessness, does the Minister agree that universal credit should cover the median rent in every part of the country, and will the Government do what they promised at the election and get on with scrapping Section 21 evictions? Finally, why are the Government only “asking” bailiffs not to carry out evictions? They have compelled so many on so much. What is so special about the bailiffs?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, that was a succession of questions. There is no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is a phenomenal force of nature. I watched how she took the troubled families programme and developed a fantastic resolve at all levels of government, and in the social and charitable sectors, to ensure that everyone worked together to tackle the malaise of the families who require a huge amount of support from the state—and then with the integration programme. We have really benefited from her work. However, we do see leadership from Ministers, including the Secretary of State, and a resolve to do something at all levels of government. We will build on that. As for the removal of Section 21, that is a manifesto commitment, and we will introduce legislation to deliver a better deal for renters, including repealing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, as a priority, once the urgency of responding to this dreadful pandemic has passed. I will write to the noble Baroness on the other matters.

Lord Bird: I do not know whether the Minister has read the Lancet report showing that the work done in the first lockdown led to a saving of 266 lives, that more than 1,000 people were prevented from ending up in hospital, and about 350 from ending up in  intensive care. This is prevention. I have been working for the last 30 years to try to get successive Governments working on prevention—on stopping homelessness happening—because when people slip into homelessness, they die. I thank the Government for their efforts in the previous period, but I am also asking loads of questions. Where are the answers for this next period? More than anything, I want to know what we are going to do about stopping circa 200,000 people slipping into the treacle of homelessness because of their inability to pay their rent or mortgage.

Lord Greenhalgh: The noble Lord makes an important point about focusing on prevention. In all areas of public policy, we want to prevent things happening in the first place. In healthcare, for example, rather than just letting the disease get worse and then responding, we want to prevent it happening in the first place. That is why the money going towards ending rough sleeping—the £700 million that has been committed and continues to be spent—is a part of the wider package for tackling homelessness. There is an absolute resolve to deal with the issues that the noble Lord raises. We will continue to focus on prevention and also on the response to those who are on the streets.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: May I gently remind noble Lords to keep their questions and answers brief? A number of noble Lords still wish to get in.

Lord Polak: I guess it is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise but on the critical issue of homelessness this Government, and specifically the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, together with my noble friend the Minister, ought to be congratulated. As has been said, early in the pandemic they launched the Everyone In project, backed up with £700 million. In addition, the recent announcement of the Protect programme, with a further £15 million, will ensure that councils can offer everyone sleeping rough somewhere safe to go. However, does my noble friend agree that it would be reprehensible if any council used that funding for people who are not sleeping rough?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, it is important to focus the money designed for rough sleeping on rough sleeping—that is its intended purpose—but it is also important to deal with the wider issue of homelessness. I would point out that the Government have given £6.4 billion to local councils to support their communities through the pandemic.

Bishop of Durham: The Salvation Army has an innovative project for short-term housing solutions by using “meanwhile use” land to provide high-quality modular homes rooted in church communities and supported by wider community groups. This gives the residents the provision of a flat and the relational support of the community. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to the Salvation Army’s innovative approach to homelessness and similar projects?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we want to build on what works. I will take away this idea, make sure we give it due consideration and find out how we can support the Salvation Army in its policy ideas—and potentially scale them up, if they are working well.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, we have almost a repeat scenario of the situation we discussed earlier this month relating to free school meals. A very good government initiative earlier in the year—Everyone In—was widely praised, but now it is no longer in that form the responsibility is being passed, through the funding agreements that have been mentioned, to local authorities. That is the answer we got about free school meals. But, as we see in this morning’s press, local councils are facing widespread financial failures and are terrifically strapped for cash. A previous question supposed that the money had to be hypothecated for people suffering from homelessness and rough sleeping—but local councils have so many priorities that will match that. This will be another postcode lottery, if we are not careful. Why can the Government not have another Marcus Rashford moment, and do a U-turn? This month of lockdown is already under way, and the Question is about this month.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I was, unfortunately, a local council leader during a previous Administration under the leadership of Gordon Brown, when there was no Government more focused on ring-fencing every fund. My point was that if a fund is specifically for rough sleepers, it is right and proper that it be targeted on those who are sleeping rough. Most of the money that we are providing—the £6.4 billion—is non-ring-fenced money for local councils to put where their local communities need it most.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, there is a story in Sikhism about the young Guru Nanak spending money given to him for investment on food and blankets for the homeless who were shivering in the winter sun. This led to free dining areas in all the gurdwaras. Does the Minister agree that such facilities, underused in the current pandemic and common to all our different places of worship, can be a valuable resource to help the homeless on today’s streets?

Lord Greenhalgh: As Faith Minister, I completely agree. Places of worship, whether they are gurdwaras, temples, churches or synagogues, play a huge part in dealing with the social issues of our time, including homelessness.

Lord Young of Cookham: Does my noble friend agree that rough sleepers, and those working with them, are particularly vulnerable to Covid? Will he recommend to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that they should be a priority?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I am happy to make representations to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about making this decision.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed. Rather than adjourn the House, if we can just take a minute to move round, I shall move straight into introducing the Fisheries Bill business.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, the hybrid proceedings will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
We now come to consideration of Commons amendments to the Fisheries Bill. These proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedures and Privileges Committee. When there are counter-propositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and capacity of the Chamber. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair.
Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw.
When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counter-proposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email. The way in which to vote will be on a remote voting system through the Peers’ hub. We will now begin.

Fisheries Bill [HL]
 - Commons Amendments

Motion on Amendment 1

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—“(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—(a) fish and aquaculture activities are—(i) environmentally sustainable in the long term, and(ii) managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and(b) the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the Government recognise the intent of this House in focusing its attention on environmental sustainability. The Bill recognises the complexity and challenges of fisheries management and sets a framework that ensures that sustained environmental progress goes hand in hand with social and economic considerations. I should highlight some actions that Defra is undertaking that focus on environmental sustainability.
The Marine Management Organisation has issued a call for evidence on fisheries management measures for five marine protected areas to be implemented next year. Industry recognises the importance of sustainability and wants to work in partnership, as shown when it raised concerns about a scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank. Following constructive discussions with all four Administrations, the area was closed to conduct scientific surveys and provide increased protection to the stock in the area. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations stated that
“without a functioning ecosystem and policies which limit fishing to safe levels, there will be no fishing industry.”
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation said that,
“it is simply bad business sense to ‘bankrupt’ fish stocks—a healthy marine environment is the cornerstone of the UK’s fishing future.”
We have previously discussed the Bill’s fisheries management plans. They are an important demonstration of the Government’s commitment to improving the marine environment. There are clear obligations for consultation, reporting and review of the plans, providing opportunities to hold the Government to account. We are already working with the shellfish industry advisory group to support its initiative to develop management plans for crabs, lobster and whelks. These valuable stocks currently have little management, so it is right that we prioritise these plans.
I will now address specific elements of Motion 1A. Lawyers advise me that removing “in the long term” would introduce significant uncertainty and hence legal risk to our policy development. Any fisheries management policy or measure could be challenged if there was potential for it to affect environmental sustainability. There are inevitable short-term impacts from development of aquaculture systems or port infrastructure that are managed through the planning and licensing process. The amendment could potentially prevent any further development to support coastal regeneration. We are clear, too, that to ensure long-term sustainability we must make progress in the short term. That is why in my prelude to my remarks on the amendments in the group I set out some of the work currently under way.
Turning to Amendment 1B, the United Kingdom has a well-established vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 require the Government and the devolved Administrations to produce a UK marine strategy for our seas to achieve good environmental status. This is a transparent, evidence-based process, drawing in the best available science on the condition of our marine environment. The Bill’s fisheries objectives link to the Marine Strategy Regulations.
Clause 2(1)(c) requires fisheries policy authorities to explain
“how the fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied in formulating the policies and proposals”
as part of the joint fisheries statement. This explanation will, of course, rely on scientific evidence. The statement will include an explanation of how the fisheries policy authorities have sought to balance the individual components of the fisheries objectives, including the three elements of the sustainability objective, and the reasons for the fisheries policy authorities believing that the approach outlined in the statement represents the most appropriate way of meeting the sustainability objective, alongside the other objectives. I should also say that six of the eight objectives are environmentally focused, all of which will help deliver sustainable fisheries.
The joint fisheries statement will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, report its progress every three years and be reviewed at least every six years. This means that the statement on the proportionate application of fisheries objectives will be reviewed at these points too, with the necessary public consultation and scrutiny. This provides future accountability beyond this Government. Future policy development will be a collaborative and transparent process. Fisheries management plans will also be subject to public consultation. I hope that noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will accept that I absolutely understand what they seek to achieve. We all share the overriding objective of a vibrant marine environment.
Amendments 3 and 4 deal with the removal of the national landing requirement clause and the quota for new entrants and the under-10s respectively. The Government recognise the strength of feeling across both Houses in ensuring that the UK benefits from fish caught in its waters, and that quota is distributed fairly. Last month, consultations were launched on both matters. The economic link and quota allocation to industry are devolved matters, and while the Government engage with their devolved counterparts on policy across the UK, I will necessarily focus on what we are doing in England at this point.
The key features of our proposals in our consultation on strengthening the economic link are to set a landing requirement of at least 70%, and for vessel owners to make up any shortfall in reaching that percentage of landings through quota donations. Quota donations are part of the existing economic link and they benefit the inshore fleet. This strikes a good balance where higher levels of landings will benefit UK ports and the wider economy, while ensuring that in most cases businesses can continue to operate using existing models.
The Government also consulted on future quota allocation and management in England in October. We sought views on whether a reserve of quota for new entrants should be established and how this could work. We will be working with industry in 2021 and beyond to develop jointly and implement solutions to this important issue.
Lack of quota is not the only challenge holding back new entrants into this industry. The Government  are also working with Seafish and a range of training partners to offer apprenticeships across the UK on a range of subjects.
The consultation also sought views on how we should fairly allocate additional quota between sector and non-sector pools. The non-sector pools include under-10-metre vessels. The consultation sought broader views on quota management in future, and it sought expressions of interest for piloting community quota management schemes. Defra officials had a number of constructive and positive conversations with various members of the under-10-metre fleet about these initiatives.
Amendment 14 removed Clause 48 on remote electronic monitoring in UK waters, and Amendments 14A and 14B would reinstate that clause, made specific to English waters and vessels. I recognise the importance that your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, place on the benefits that REM can deliver and the need to make progress in expanding its use. I also welcome his helpful submission of evidence on behalf of the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
Monitoring and enforcement is devolved and the noble Lord’s amendments recognise this, but the fact that the previous clause removed by the Commons overstepped devolution was not our only concern, as has been made clear in both Houses. The noble Lord’s amendments would restrict us to specific management measures on a particular timescale. Existing powers in the Bill will allow us to implement REM, but with the flexibility to develop tailored management approaches. Our view it that a one-size-fits-all approach would be a return to the inflexibility of the common fisheries policy.
REM has benefits. Existing studies have shown that it can be an effective enforcement tool, but we agree that it can be used to build a better scientific evidence base as well. The Government also agree with those who have successfully rolled out remote electronic monitoring elsewhere that it is much better to do it with the industry, rather than to the industry.
That is why, on 19 October, Defra launched a call for evidence on expanding the use of remote electronic monitoring in English waters. This action has been welcomed by many environmental groups, including the Marine Conservation Society. The discussions on the call for evidence have shown a wide range of views. The evidence we gather will help us design the detailed options for expanding REM in the right way. In the first half of next year, we aim to have launched a consultation on these detailed options for rolling out increased use of REM. Defra will also work closely with all nations of the United Kingdom to develop a coherent approach to REM, while fully respecting the devolution settlements.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who I know wants to make progress on this—we all do—will accept the Government’s intentions and current work. This is about how we take this matter forward.
The Government have made clear commitments to exploring issues raised in your Lordships’ House with industry and other stakeholders through consultations and calls for evidence. Defra is already taking important action to improve the marine environment, which I very much hope noble Lords will welcome. With those remarks, I beg to move.

Motion 1A (as an amendment to Amendment 1)

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: Moved by Lord Randall of Uxbridge
In subsection (2)(a)(i) leave out “in the long term”.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, I beg to move Motion 1A standing in my name. I draw attention to my environmental interests, as declared in the register. I am also a member of the Marine Conservation Society.
We are very nearly here with this important legislation. First, I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend, who is the epitome of patience and understanding. I am sorry for all the extra work I have caused him and his hard-working officials. I also thank the Secretary of State and Fisheries Minister in the other place for the various discussions we have had. I have not had so much interaction with Ministers since I was the Deputy Chief Whip there, and that was normally telling them that they had to stay for votes.
My amendment is very simple, which noble Lords might expect from someone who is best described as a “bear of very little brain”. I simply want to remove the rather vague “in the long term” from sustainability. My fears are perhaps unfounded, and my noble friend has done his best to reassure me that the Bill will offer jam tomorrow, if it does not today, but I believe that we should be putting sustainability at the immediate heart of our fishing policy.
But why is “in the long term” included? What does it actually mean? I remember, when I was in retail, always being confused by the term “lifetime guarantee”. Does it mean the lifetime of the purchaser or of the product so guaranteed? Either way, it is a pretty meaningless phrase. So when does “short term” finish and “mid term” kick in? More importantly, when does “long term” mean? When should we expect—next year, the next five years or, more worryingly, next century? I feel this is a pretty meaningless term, so why not just ditch it?
One of the reasons we have heard is that not having “in the long term” in could threaten port developments. I understand that might be a consideration but, not being a great fisheries expert, I would not have thought that ports would affect fisheries, as they are not close. They might affect shellfish or nearshore fisheries, but not the deep-sea fisheries that we are talking about.
Fish are not visible; perhaps, if they were above the seas, we would appreciate their vulnerability much more. Think about bison on the great plains of North America; there were so many in the 19th century, but they had almost gone within a few decades. Passenger pigeons present an even more poignant example of extinction by overhunting. In today’s world, we are all aware of the dwindling numbers of insects, which is very worrying. But let us not fool ourselves: it has already happened with fish. Speak to the Newfoundlanders, who lost their cod and their livelihoods. We cannot continue to overfish the oceans and, if we still want to maintain our harvest of this valuable food source, we must act and must act straightaway.
I was disappointed to learn that my simple thought unleashes legal arguments far beyond my understanding. Call me psychic, but I get the feeling that my amendment will not be accepted. I am at heart a pragmatist, not a dogmatist, so I therefore ask my noble friend for an assurance, at least, that the current situation, which often prioritises short-term economic impacts when deciding quota limits, will be addressed and that fishing authorities will give due regard to long-term environmental impacts when making decisions.
Perhaps, for those cases where quota allocations are set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels—which happens year after year for certain stocks at the annual negotiations—this could be achieved by giving the public detail setting out the decision-making process and how long-term environmental sustainability of the stock was taken into consideration when making the decision. One of the issues around the annual quota-setting process is the lack of transparency about how decisions are reached. We urgently need accountability around the decision-making process and why the Secretary of State has agreed to overfish a particular stock, if he or she has.
This has been a steep learning curve for me, which I perhaps should have started on some time ago, but I am always keen to learn. I wait to hear my noble friend’s reply to my points. I am also acutely aware that this Chamber is appointed and not elected, and I do not want to embark on something that will unreasonably delay the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who explained the purpose of his amendment so clearly. I can be brief on Motion 1B, because I believe—and I will come back to this—that the Minister agreed to the point of the amendment in his opening speech. The rationale of my amendment, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is to ensure that the Bill places primacy on the environmental sustainability of fish stocks and the marine environment.
My amendment explicitly put environmental sustainability as the primary fisheries objective when I tabled it on Report. It was rejected by the Government because, it was argued, sustainability is a three-legged stool. It is about the environment, but it is also about the economy—the livelihood of fishers—and communities. I accept that sustainability is a three-legged stool. Amendment 1B asks how the three legs will be balanced against one another. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I wish to see transparency in how these calculations are done. As he said, we must avoid making the same mistakes that we have made in the past. We do not need to repeat the arguments that we have heard many times during the passage of this Bill, that many fish stocks, not only in European and UK waters but in other waters around the world, are heavily overfished because short-term gain has always been put ahead of sustainability—the livelihoods of fishers today put ahead of the lives of the fish tomorrow. I am asking the Government to show us their workings. If they are going to balance these three elements of the stool, they must show us how. How have the joint fisheries statements balanced the three legs of sustainability, along with the other fisheries objectives?
In his opening remarks, the Minister answered this. I listened very carefully and wrote down what he said, which was that the joint fisheries statement will include an explanation of how the fisheries policy authorities have sought to balance the individual components of the fisheries objectives, including, importantly, the three elements of the sustainability objective, which is exactly what my amendment was asking for. Furthermore, he said that the fisheries authorities would also give the reasons why their balancing of these different elements of the objectives, including the sustainability objective, is the most appropriate way of meeting the sustainability objective. If the joint fisheries statements follow the indication that the Minister has given, we will end up with transparency, we will all understand the workings and we will understand that if sacrifices are being made in the short term to the marine environment on behalf of the livelihoods of fishers and their communities, we will at least know that this has happened, and why it has happened, which will be a significant step forward.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I pay tribute to the Minister, his officials and the Secretary of State in the other place, for their very patient listening. I too have been a thorn in the side of the Minister and his officials. I apologise, but through these prolonged discussions over many months, we have improved the Bill and the surrounding commentary from the Minister at various stages. In thanking him, and in speaking to my amendment, I also support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. No doubt when we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I shall support his amendment. I had the great privilege of serving under his chairmanship on the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, where we spent many hours cogitating and hearing evidence on remote electronic monitoring.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest, as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I will speak to Amendments 14A and 14B in my name, but I shall first refer to some of the other amendments. It is excellent to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to whom I give all credit for his persistence in ensuring that this matter around objectives is not allowed to rest. I hope the Minister will give the noble Lord the assurances that he needs.
I will not go on about it after this, but I must say that the Government have made it quite clear that this Bill is the first time for 40 years or more that we have been able to have our own fisheries legislation—fundamental primary legislation—in this House and in the other place. There are good things in it, and I am delighted that the Government brought it forward, but they should have had more courage to make it, in the Prime Minister’s words, a world-beating and ambitious Bill, rather than one that takes us half way to the destinations we need to reach. I give it credit for where it has got us, but it could have gone further, which is why I am disappointed that the four amendments that this House sent to the other place were effectively rejected.
Regarding the ordering of the objectives of fisheries plans and management, by giving all those objectives equal status, there are a number of escape clauses to avoid the difficult decisions with the fisheries industry  around setting tax and quotas. I suspect that we will not have a fundamental fisheries Bill for many years now, so these escape routes will cover future Governments as well as this one. Whatever reassurances we have now, we cannot be certain that they will be carried forward by future Secretaries of State or Governments. That is why I am so sad that we are repeating the mistakes of the common fisheries policy. However, I will move on, and if the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is happy with the Minister’s response, I give it full credit.
I thank the Minister for mentioning the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation. From what he says, I suspect that he has been in contact with it. It is great at promoting not only fishing activity but the whole supply chain and the excellent provenance of Cornish fresh fish products.
Going through a couple of those other amendments that we have not talked about so much and do not have counterproposals for, I recognise that the Government are moving ahead on the obligations regarding the proportion of fish landed, which I take positively. However, on the redistribution of quotas, I still want to understand from the Government, given the large foreign ownership of those stocks effectively through British companies, how the Government will resolve those issues and ensure that British fishers will still be the main beneficiaries of that extra quota, which comes from greater control over our EEZ, and not foreign owners of British companies. Will the National Security and Investment Bill, newly introduced in the other place, be a method by which we protect this resource for British fishers? Is that an intention of this Government? It deserves that level of interest, given the potential application of the legislation. Otherwise, we gain the EEZ, we go through difficult negotiations with the EU, and then we give it all away again. How do we ensure that we do not do that?
Coming to my own amendments on remote electronic monitoring, I very much welcome the Government having quickly put out a call for evidence. This will lead to a consultation, and I am also pleased that the Government have given a timetable for that, although it is not until next year, and clearly, even though we are almost into next year, the evidence has yet to come in.
I am slightly disappointed that there is still quite a bit of caution. Clearly, we have to take notice of the evidence that comes in to that call, but there seems still to be no understanding that REM is the way forward. It is the only technology to gain the right data and ensure that enforcement is effective. Sure, some of that might change, but it will change through the software and the way that information is used or processed; it will not be the technology itself—the technology will just get cheaper and easier to use.
I put down an amendment that I thought would absolutely fulfil the Minister’s needs. I am a huge believer in devolution, as are these Benches, and so mine is an English proposition rather than a United Kingdom one. I rather expected the Minister to thank me and accept it. Clearly, that is not going to be the case, and so I have considered my position—I have not quite warned the Deputy Speakers that I might call a vote, but there we are.
I hear what the Government have said and I welcome that we have started to move down the road of the REM process. However, I ask the Minister to use seriously his influence—I know that the Secretary of State is generally positive in this area—to make this big step. It is a route to greater sustainability; it is a route to ensure honest fishers do not suffer from those who are not so honest in the industry. It means a level playing field and honesty on the high seas—something that is difficult to enforce at the moment.
I still push for my amendment. However, I would be interested to hear from the Government on these other issues.

Baroness Henig: The following Members in the Chamber have indicated they wish to speak: the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I wish to address the Government’s amendment to Clause 1 and the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Randall. The Government have proposed replacing subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 with a single subsection. To understand the implications, one must look carefully at the deletions. Subsection (3), which the Government would delete, states that the sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. It is reasonable to infer that the removal of this is tantamount to its negation. If sustainability is not the prime objective of fish stock management, it is logical to infer that the depletion of fish stocks would be regarded as a tolerable outcome if their preservation would stand in the way of the realisation of more favoured objectives.
One does not have to look far to discover what these objectives might be. The Government have encouraged an expectation that Brexit will result in a bonanza for British fishermen. They are keen to avoid an immediate disappointment of this expectation by restraining the fishermen. Fish are not vital to the UK economy. The incentive to conserve them is liable to be overshadowed in the short run by the desire of the Government to appease UK fishermen and supporters of Brexit in general.
That this is the immediate objective is confirmed by another deletion from subsection 2(a)—the deletion to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, draws attention. The original clause declared the intention to avoid compromising environmental sustainability either in the short term or in the long term. The Government now propose to do this only in the long term. This invites the danger that, in the long term, there would be little left to sustain. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has proposed that the remaining qualification, which refers to the long run, should also be deleted, so that the objective of environmental sustainability can be asserted unequivocally. I believe this to be his intention and I support his Motion strongly.
Thankfully, there are other passages in the confused text of this Bill that might give us greater hope for the survivability of fish stocks than the Government’s proposed version of subsection (2) of Clause 1.  Clause 1(3)(b) asserts the objective of exploiting the marine stocks in such a way as to maintain the populations of harvested species above the biomass levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. Notice that this is not an injunction to fish at the maximum sustainable yield—which would imperil the fish stocks—but to fish at a lesser rate, which would allow stocks to regenerate.
I am unaware of the provenance of this clause. It must have been placed there by someone with a proper understanding of fish stock ecology. It makes good sense and I wish to commend it.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly on this group of amendments. I wish to speak to nothing other than Commons Amendment 3, relating to the deletion of Clause 18, which deals with the national landing requirement. I support the Government going down this path of accepting that we do not want to impose the rigidities of that formulation, and I entirely agree with what my noble friend the Minister said in introducing his amendments and speaking to that particular one.
As was said by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is about achieving economic benefits through economic linkage. The Government are pursuing this through their consultation. We must understand that the most important economic benefits will be derived from the new relationship we establish with the European Union and our role as an independent coastal state. We must make this happen.
I remind noble Lords—I know those present will know only too well—that we import two-thirds of the fish that we eat and we export two-thirds of the fish that we catch. The market and trading relationship that we have with our neighbours is as important as the relationship that we have around the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is said that a deal can be done: both sides are saying a deal can be done but both sides continue to say that such a deal has not yet been done in relation to fisheries. That is a sad fact, because it should be the case that a deal should be available. Some considerable time ago, the European Union accepted the proposition that there would be a move to zonal attachment rather than relative stability. It cannot deny the simple legal fact that we have now, and will have in future, sovereign control over our waters, but I think we all accept that there is a need to co-operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson—he understands this far better than I do—made the point that what we require for our UK fishing fleet is, in the years ahead, a reversal of the experience they have had in the last decades. Instead of the progressive reduction of capacity of the UK fishing fleet—which I think is something around 30% down over 20 years, and halved over the last 40 years—we want in the decade ahead to see the capacity of the UK fishing fleet increase, year on year. It is not simply about the allocation of additional quota, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that could end up quota that is sold back to foreign boats.
What we want to see therefore—and what is, I think, the basis of a deal—is an acceptance on the part of the EU that there is a progressive increase in UK quota  that is then made as additional quota available to UK boats at a pace realistic to their ability to increase capacity. They have been losing capacity, on average, at 2% a year, and we could maybe be more ambitious in recovering it—at perhaps 5% a year, and a 50% increase in capacity over 10 years.
It may be that this is not achievable in a straightforward deal with our European partners. But in the broader context of the relationship with the EU, such a shift and reduction in the available quota to our neighbours in the European Union is entirely negotiable, with compensation for those who lose access to quota in some of these other countries. That may be something we have to accept in the context of the deal.
However, it seems to me that one of the ideological barriers to understanding the nature of the deal that has to be struck is the proposition, constantly made by the Government, that there is no relationship between market access and quota. That is clearly not true. It was not true for the Norwegians: the European Economic Area discussions that Norway had with the European Union were about financial contributions, fishing opportunities and market access. Our deal with the European Union must include all those three aspects too. When we accept that, and the fact that we are substantial importers and consumers of fish caught by our neighbours, just as they buy from us, we then begin to realise that there must be a deal and how it might be achievable. We will then get the economic benefits through the expansion of our fishing fleet over a period of time at a sustainable rate, which, I believe, should be accepted, even by the most fervent advocates of the Brexit process—which I am not. But even those who are must accept that simply, for example, giving all the quota back to the English fishing fleet tomorrow will not suddenly create a large capacity that does not presently exist.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I shall speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I would like to say what a privilege it is to serve under his chairmanship on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
I have spoken at every stage of this Bill about the benefits of remote electronic monitoring, and I very much support the conclusions that we reached in the other place when I was chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. As the number one admirer of my noble friend the Minister, I believe that this amendment should be extremely helpful to him. I would like to quote what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose would have said had he been here. He feels that at the moment we are missing answers to the main questions about reasonably accurate records of stocks, and I think that this amendment serves to plug that gap. In my noble friend’s words, it
“might remove some of the resistance in the under 10m fleet”,
because we are exposing that. The amendment addresses what is missing at the moment, which is the scientific data that we need. I welcome the fact that under-10-metre vessels will be excluded and that that exclusion will apply to both UK vessels and other vessels fishing in our waters.
I want to impress on the Minister a sense of urgency in this matter. I welcome the fact that he has made a call for evidence and that we are to have a consultation in the first half of next year, but there will then be a further delay before the regulations are drafted and come into effect, and that is the missing link. Therefore, I urge the Minister to show a sense of urgency in this regard.
In regard to the quotas for under-10-metre fishing vessels, when I was MEP for Essex North and Suffolk South, the whole of the Essex coast was in my constituency. This issue is of immense concern to fishermen there and to fishermen in Filey and other parts of Yorkshire. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that we do not need to have left the EU fisheries policy to achieve this, so, again, I hope that we can proceed rapidly to the donations and to allowing unused quotas to be used by the under-10s.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, always speaks with authority. If the Minister is not able to accept his amendment, I hope that he will say what vehicle he will use in this House to inform us how the three legs of the sustainability objective will be retained.
Finally, expressions such as “long term” and “shortly” always amuse me. Now, we learn from the Minister that we will hear before the summer about the regulations to bring part of these provisions into effect. Can my noble friend point to the specific part that “in the long term” will apply to? Is it the habitats directive? Which legal provision would prevent any possible future development of ports if the words “in the long term” were removed from Amendment 1? What specific legal provision can he refer to in that regard? I am struggling to understand, unless there is a specific provision in the habitats directive or other parts of what are now EU retained law in UK law.
With that, the one amendment that I would support, if he were to put it to a vote, is Amendment 14B, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that this Bill is not ambitious enough. I think that it is, and it is considerably more ambitious than it would have been if written a few years ago, as I am sure he would agree. In 10 years’ time, we might, with hindsight, say that it could have been more ambitious, but, given the current climate, I think that it is a pretty ambitious Bill.
I say that because one has to bear in mind the amount of detailed work and consultation that has gone on with the devolved Administrations. I will not point a finger at which of the devolved Administrations is not as keen on the environment as the Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, and I might be and has blocked some of the amendments that we put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also talked about companies and business. I take a slightly different view from him on that. I welcome all investment in the fishing industry, wherever it comes from, as it is to the benefit of this country and the fishing industry. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will confirm that the taxpayer will not compensate or help English fishermen to buy back the quotas that they have sold  but which the Scottish and other fishermen have not sold and who would therefore not benefit in the same way,
I join the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his concern that Clause 1(3) is being deleted. I listened to my noble friend’s opening speech, but I hope that he will come back to this point, because it seems to me that sustainability should remain a prime objective of the fishing industry.
On Amendment 1B, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his persistence and, I think, his victory with the Government. He was right to highlight what my noble friend Lord Gardiner had said. Provided my noble friend confirms that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has correctly interpreted what he said, I will stick with the Government on this.
I was initially attracted by Amendment 1A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, but he was wise to be pragmatic, because there are difficulties with deleting “in the long term”. However, I hope very much that in the short term we will get to where we are going.
Finally, on Amendment 14B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Bill allows this to be introduced. I speak with the experience of having twice been a Minister for Fisheries many moons ago. I recall that the one lesson I learned from everybody I talked to in the fishing industry then was that, if you work with the industry, you get a better and quicker result than if you impose something on it. This is perhaps one situation where I suggest to the House that that bit of advice is the way forward. I know that my noble friend is keen to get this to work, but I think that working with the industry and getting it on side will be helpful. One has only to read the press reports of the great spat that is about to happen between President Macron and the French scallop fishers. Perhaps that is why President Macron is being so difficult over the fishing negotiations: he is trying to appease the industry on the one hand while clobbering it hard with the other.
We have made progress with the Bill. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that none of the amendments is put to a vote.

Baroness Henig: I have had no further requests from the Chamber to speak, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, this group of amendments seems to put all the controversial fishing amendments—as opposed to the controversial Crown dependency amendment—into one group. I ask noble Lords to forgive the length of my intervention at this stage of the Bill but it will be my only intervention today.
On Amendment 1B, I support the principles being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. One of the most unedifying parts of the common fisheries policy is the annual December bun-fight over future quotas and fishing rights. This is a party where too many Ministers try to represent the fishers of their country against the fishers of a neighbouring country; they try to represent the fishers of today rather than the fishers of tomorrow, who unfortunately do not get a vote. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Deben, telling  me once about an occasion when he was representing the UK at that year’s fisheries meeting. The Danish Fisheries Minister tried to take a long-term view of fishing opportunities; when he got home, he was promptly sacked for letting down his fishing industry. That is an example of why the common fisheries policy has sometimes been described as a tragedy of the commons —in other words, today’s fishers say to themselves, “There’s no point in me not catching all the fish I can now because if I don’t catch them while they are there, the other blighters will”.
However, all that is now finished. These are our waters that we are discussing. The other blighters cannot catch them without a licence issued by us. When we get remote electronic monitoring on to all the boats in our waters, British and EU, we will know exactly who is catching what and where and thus be able to prevent overfishing for short-term socioeconomic gain. So there is no longer any excuse for not taking a long-term sustainable approach to our fisheries.
I quite like the use of “long term”. In saying that, I am not trying to oppose the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I understand completely what he is getting at and I totally support his motives; he does not want short-term economic gain to trump environmental gain in either the short or the long term. However, I would quite like to have “long term” somewhere in this crucial Bill-defining first clause because it seems to me that that would make it clear that we are laying down these objectives for tomorrow’s fishers rather than today’s—for our current fishers’ grand- children rather than for those fishers themselves.
Coming back to Amendment 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, a commitment by the Minister on the Floor of the House may suffice at this stage. However, although I may have missed this in his opening remarks, I ask that he considers in his final remarks committing to reporting on this matter more than just once after the Bill has been enacted. It would be good to know that this once-in-a-lifetime chance to embed the right principles in our fisheries legislation will be an ongoing commitment for the long term— which, as I say, is what really matters.
Turning briefly to Commons Amendment 3, I can see why, with the Brexit negotiations still ongoing, the Government did not want their hands tied by the details of our Clause 18 on the landing requirement. I can also see why they would want more flexibility—and time, perhaps—to consult on economic links. However, it is a pity, in spite of what the Minister said, that the Government did not feel that they could have replaced our Clause 18 with their own clause setting out the principles of an economic link. We have now lost all reference in the Bill to a landing requirement or an economic link; as I say, that is a pity, particularly bearing in mind the vision that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, just gave us on how our negotiations with the EU might go over the next 10 years or so.
The same thoughts apply to Commons Amendment 4, which removed our Clause 27 on holding a reserve of quota for new entrants and smaller boats. The Minister in the other place said that
“the Government agree with the intention behind the clause, but disagree with the manner in which that intention is proposed to be delivered … It is our intention to consult on using some of the  Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 10/9/20; col. 123.]
If the Government support the clause but not its details, why not put in something better of their own in its place? Even if consultation has to follow, this seems to be an opportunity lost. After all, such schemes have worked successfully in Denmark, on a more local scale in the Shetlands and probably in other countries as well.
The impression given by the Government’s amendment just to delete our Clause 27 is one of Executive bulldozing—that is, “We don’t disapprove of what is proposed but, rather than sitting down and working out what is needed, let’s just scrap it altogether and leave it to us, the Executive, to work something out in future without the parliamentary scrutiny that words on the face of a Bill might require”. As I said about Amendment 3, this seems like a lost opportunity to put something in the Bill, which is a pity because this Bill sets the framework for our UK fisheries for probably a whole generation.
Turning to Amendment 14B, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing forward once again the question of having remote electronic monitoring, known as REM, on fishing vessels in our waters and trying to get some form of government commitment into the Bill. Having looked at fisheries several times over the years on the EU sub-committee that the noble Lord very skilfully chairs, and having heard hours—if not days—of evidence on this subject, I am convinced that REM is going to be the key element to the successful and sustainable fishing regime that we all wish to see in British waters after we regain control of our own fisheries.
As I made clear on Report, we need REM to manage all the fishing in our waters. One of the most important reasons is that we do not have the necessary fleet available to police either our new fisheries policy or the terms and conditions that will accompany the fishing licences for all boats in UK waters. Bearing in mind that some 70% of all fish currently caught in UK waters are caught by non-UK boats, the management role of REM will be really important to the equitable management of our fisheries and thus the long-term sustainability of our UK fishing industry. It is important that our own fishers realise that if we are to change the share-out of the fish in our waters, albeit gradually, we will have to accept that REM is inevitable as we cannot monitor non-UK boats without monitoring our own. The sooner we have REM, the better it will be for everyone.
In a similar vein, I acknowledge that the Scottish fishing fleet catches 64% of all UK fish landed compared to the English fleet’s mere 28%, so one might think that this compromise amendment—Amendment 14B—applies only to England and would put an unfair burden on the English fleet. It might, but then again we should note that the introduction of REM to the Scottish fleet was in fact a manifesto commitment of the SNP, so I do not believe that any disparity would last for very long.
In any case, without going into all the detail of the advantages of REM that I spoke about on Report—such as providing data for zonal attachment and avoiding choke species—I firmly believe that the large amounts of real-time data that would become available to fishers and fishing authorities as a result of the introduction of universal REM would become a hugely valuable asset to all parties, including to the fishers themselves. I am convinced that, if they try it for a few years, the fishermen will not want to go back. I realise that Amendment 14B does not go as far as universal REM but I hope that eventually we will get it on to all boats.
But, ignoring my aspirations and coming back to where we are today, I get the impression that the Government are actually quite enthusiastic about REM—I think the Minister confirmed that in his opening remarks—but they just want the room to introduce it in their own way and in their own time. I was interested to see from my notes on the passage of the earlier version of the Bill through its Committee stage in the Commons last year that the then Fisheries Minister, one George Eustice, said:
“as I made clear earlier, DEFRA has recently consulted on extending VMS requirements to UK vessels under 12 metres in length.”
VMS—video monitoring system—was the earlier acronym to describe REM. He went on to say:
“Work on this is at an advanced stage and we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year.”
Clearly all that is now irrelevant with the collapse of that particular Bill, but I would be interested to know the difference between that consultation, which George Eustice referred to, and the call for evidence just launched. I hope that the current one includes asking both US and New Zealand authorities, for instance, what made them roll it out across their fleets, what their early impressions are and, perhaps, how they managed to impose it in the face of the inevitable reluctance of their fishers. Do not forget that, in both cases, I would be surprised if even 5% of their fish were being caught by non-national boats, so the argument for REM for their fleets would not have been half so convincing as it is for ours.
Also, given my assumption of the enthusiasm for REM by both Defra and its Ministers, I was wondering if the Minister might go as far as to echo the words of the current Secretary of State by saying, like him last year:
“we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 17/12/18; col. 369.]
Perhaps that may be an ask too far.
I realise that this amendment is probably not going to change very much of itself, but it would be good to get some form of greater encouragement from the Minister that REM really matters to the Government. As I say, I am convinced that the introduction of universal REM will be the key element to a successful and sustainable UK fishing regime.
As this is probably my last intervention on the Bill, I want to say that the passing of the Bill will be a great moment in the history of UK fisheries, possibly more so than the passing of the now Agriculture Act is for UK farmers, though some might dispute that. Anyway,  I am proud to have been involved in this Bill—well, both Bills actually—and to have worked with everyone from all sides of the House, particularly with the Minister, who has given so much of his time and attention to everything we have had to say.
I believe we now have a pretty good road map for our fishing future. We have the opportunity to set off in a new direction and I hope be a model to the rest of the world, where, all too often, fisheries are overfished to the detriment of the marine environment. We, the non-government Peers involved, did not get all we wanted from the Bill, and we have had to trust the Government across a range of issues in the hope that they will actually deliver. But I sincerely hope and believe that, if the Government do stick to their commitments, the way forward mapped out by the Bill will enable us to maintain a flourishing fishing industry without, most importantly, compromising the opportunities of future generations.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction to this group of amendments, and for his time and that of the Secretary of State and his officials in providing a briefing. He has given reasons for why amendments in this group cannot be accepted. However, I regret that I find it difficult to accept the Government’s arguments.
We spent many hours and days debating the Bill, with contributions from all sides in an effort to improve it, preserve our fishing stocks, protect the economy of our coastal communities and give our fishermen an income which will sustain them into the future. That is not an easy task but, at the end of the day, if we do not protect our fish stocks, we will have received no economic or social benefits for either the communities or the fishermen.
Fishing must be conducted in a sustainable way and the environment must be protected. We are all aware of the severe challenges faced by our coastal towns and villages during the six months from October to March each year, when the tourists and second homeowners visit less frequently, and in some areas not at all. Coastal communities that attract thousands of visitors during the spring and summer months know that it is often the sight of the fishing boats in the harbour which are the draw.
However, unless fish stocks are preserved and sustained into the future, there is a very real threat to the prosperity of these communities. A smash-and-grab approach, whereby fish are taken over and above the maximum sustainable yield for short-term economic gain, will not produce the results needed. Transparency, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, is absolutely key.
Motion 1A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is simple: sustainability is a must for ever. Is “the long term”, in the view of the Government, three years? Is it 10 years? It must be stretching into the future. Just what does “long term” mean? It is not acceptable in 20 years’ time for our grandchildren to say, “What is cod? What does it look like? What does it taste like?” I choose this species as it is the most widely available on fish counters today and in fish and chip shops, but it could be any species—skate,  hake or haddock. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, makes very pertinent points about the invisibility of fish. Despite international commitments to end overfishing by 2020, only 58% to 68% of UK fish stocks for which data is available are currently fished at sustainable levels. This means that between 32% and 42% are overfished and not sustainable.
Motion 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, similarly presses the need for environmental sustainability. We know from previous discussions that the Government believe that sustainability is only a third of the basis for their fishing policies, with economic and social factors being on a par—a three-legged stool. This is a false premise on which to go forward; it will not protect fish stocks. Once fish stocks have depleted there will be no economic or social benefits. Sustainability must be the overarching consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spoken knowledgeably about the allocation of quota, and the bun-fight when it is distributed.
It is regrettable that the Commons has not sought to include and support Clause 18 for a national landing requirement. Similarly, it had rejected Clause 27, which would have ensured fishing opportunities for new entrants and boats under 10 metres. There is, therefore, little hope for those young men and women living in coastal communities who wish to make fishing their way of life. There is now no mechanism for them to plan for such a future; this is extremely short-sighted. As more mature fishermen retire, it will be essential to encourage younger people into the industry. Can the Minister say what measures the Government intend to put in place to encourage new entrants into the fishing industry?
Amendment 14B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, seeks to install remote electronic monitoring systems and cameras on all over-10-metre fishing vessels, including those fishing outside the UK EEZ. This would be phased in within the next five years after passing the Bill. His timetable is not unreasonable: he asks not for this to happen next year but for a phased implementation. The government consultation on the implementation of REM is to be welcomed. It is essential that robust and verifiable data is needed to support well-managed, accountable and sustainable fisheries. Trials of REM on UK vessels have already illustrated the benefits of this technology as a valuable monitoring tool.
So why is it so important to have this on the face of the Bill and not wait for the results of the government consultation? The NFFO policy statement is that Brexit provides an opportunity to take back control of UK fishing: control access to UK waters and ensure that UK fishermen get a fair deal on quotas; revive coastal communities, bringing immediate and long-term opportunities; and grow the UK’s industry as a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. It is not wrong—this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. However, it is the methods that it wishes to follow to achieve this which are flawed. On the subject of MSY, it believes that:
“Setting quotas in mixed fisheries for sustainable fisheries management … will not be helped if there is a legal requirement that elevates MSY above all other factors and an immoveable rigidity is introduced into fisheries management.”
MSY is key to sustainability of our fish stocks.
The NFFO is similarly
“against the blanket introduction of REM as this would raise a range of ethical, legal and practical questions that so far remain unaddressed”.
I am at a loss to understand what the ethical questions might be. One thing is very clear: introducing REM will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what has been caught, where and what, if anything, has been thrown back, and where the catch is landed.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has supported my noble friend Lord Teverson in this eloquent amendment, as have other Peers. We wait to see what the result of the REM consultation will produce but, as my noble friend said, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I deeply regret that we have not grasped it with both hands. Yes, there would have been difficult decisions, but now is the time to make them, not put them off for another day. I support all three amendments, which are absolutely vital for the future of our fishing industry and fish stocks over the next 30 years.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter setting out the Government’s reasons on these amendments, and also for the very helpful meeting with the Secretary of State and advisers earlier this week. However, we remain disappointed with the Government’s response. We believe that the substance of our original amendments was sound and a constructive improvement to the Bill. Having read Hansard for the Commons considerations of our amendments, I would say that we won the arguments even if we did not win the votes.
Of course, there is a particular irony in that, from the outset, we were told that we could not amend this Bill as it was a done deal with the devolved nations that could not be unpicked, yet here we are considering 101 government amendments that have been tabled since our amendments were opposed for that very reason. We will consider the merits or otherwise of the government amendments in other groups, but I want to say something more about our amendments at this stage.
First, on sustainability, I do not think that we will ever agree on the need for environmental sustainability to be paramount. The Minister knows the strength of feeling in the House on this issue. It was not helped by the argument he originally put forward that we should welcome the arrangements because they merely replicated those in the common fisheries policy, which, as noble Lords will know, has led to depleted stocks, whereby just over half of UK fishing stocks are fished at sustainable levels. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, leaving the EU was the one opportunity to make a dynamic difference to the sustainability of our fish stocks, and it feels like the Government have failed to grasp that vision and make it a reality.
Nevertheless, I welcome the commitments in the Minister’s letter to build sustainability into the pilot schemes for the fisheries management plans and to increase protections for the marine protected areas. However, there is clearly a great deal more to be done  to demonstrate environmental sustainability in action and to persuade us that there has been a break with the discredited practices of the past. This is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on how the economic, social and environmental objectives are being balanced by the fisheries policy authorities. We would then be in a better position to judge the Government’s real determination to deliver change on this issue and there would be the transparency that we all seek. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has been tenacious in pursuing this issue, so I am pleased that the Minister was able to provide more detail in his opening comments on how the fisheries management plans will work and how the three-legged stool will be balanced so that we can hold local fishing communities to account for achieving all aspects of sustainability.
I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. He is quite right to point out that environmental sustainability should be not just a long-term objective—or, as he put it, “jam tomorrow”; it should be for the here and now, in response to the immediate crisis, rather than a distant and worthy goal. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Hanworth echoed. It seems like a simple but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the concerns raised today on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was not sure about the argument that coastal development might impact on short-term sustainability. I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to take this simple amendment on board, but I hope that the Minister was able, in his comments, to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it will, in practice, be both a short- and long-term objective.
Moving on, I am pleased that the Government have belatedly acknowledged our case in the Lords amendments on the national landing requirement and reserved quotas. The announcement of consultations on how to split additional quota from EU negotiations, the allocation of quotas for new entrants, and additional licencing requirements for vessels to land the fish at UK ports is very welcome. I will be interested to hear the response to the pertinent question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on how we can ensure that British fishers benefit from the additional quotas when so much of the fleet is currently foreign owned.
Of course, consultations can mean only so much, but it is a start, and it shows that the Government have listened to us and are beginning to address the decline of coastal communities, which lay at the heart of our amendments. As we said in the debates, our coastal communities have suffered for far too long from poor transport infrastructure, lack of educational opportunities, poor-quality housing and a tourism industry in decline. Landing more fish in UK ports, and providing new job opportunities at sea and in the port areas, could provide a lifeline for those communities. We will be watching the consultations with interest and making sure that the results are not left to rot in a back drawer in a department somewhere. But at least this is some progress.
Finally, the Government have of course also issued a call for evidence on the introduction of REM on boats in England. This was another issue with huge support when we debated it here in the Lords. It clearly goes hand in hand with the sustainability objective, as a number of noble Lords said. It was good to see 22 major supermarkets and seafood businesses recently support the call for sustainable fishing and robust monitoring and enforcement, including the rollout of cameras on boats. They quite rightly made the case that the current lack of monitoring was affecting their credibility as responsible UK businesses.
Again, the issue is what happens once the consultation ends. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to push his amendment on this issue and to flag up that we are trying to tie the hands not only of this Government but of future Administrations so that we can see the success going forward. We need timeframes and action, not just consultations on consultations. As I understand it, the devolved nations are also on board for the rollout of REM, so this is an opportunity for the UK to show leadership and determination on the issue. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will be able to persuade us that there is a detailed game plan in place, there will not be a delay and we will indeed see the rollout of REM during 2021. I look forward to his response.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly wide-ranging debate. I am particularly grateful for the kind and generous remarks that have been made.
I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that sustainability is at the heart of the Bill. I think that the work that we have all done together on the Bill shows a spirit of ambition—my noble friend Lord Caithness used the word “ambitious”. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will be satisfied that the opportunities will be as this comes into fruition. I do not think that we have missed opportunities in terms of legislative provision. The key and the test of all this is what this framework Bill will do to the marine environment, out there in the seas and oceans. That is when we all be judged—Governments, the industry—and when we will be able to see that fish stocks are recovering; indeed, that more fish stocks are recovering.
It is interesting that my noble friend Lord Randall spoke about the reference to “long term” and not wanting this, but the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rather liked it. Our clear ongoing commitment, setting out how the fisheries objectives will be applied, is provided through Clause 2(1)(c), as I said. I repeat that this will be reviewed and updated with each iteration of the joint fisheries statement, which will be laid before Parliament and consulted on. There will be regular scrutiny of our ongoing commitment to ensure that today’s fishers’ grandchildren enjoy the benefits of a healthy and productive marine environment, with sustainable fish stocks that support a thriving fishing industry and vibrant coastal communities. I know that that is the objective of us all. I repeat: removing “in the long term” from Clause 1, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Randall, will introduce significant legal uncertainty and, we believe, hinder our policy development.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about IVMS and REM. My understanding is that inshore vessel monitoring systems are a satellite-based monitoring system and enforcement tool that provides an accurate picture of the fishing location and activity of the under-12-metre fleet. Following public consultation in early 2019, the MMO is putting plans in place for IVMS to be rolled out to all licensed British under- 12-metre vessels operating in English waters. The date of implementation is not expected to be before late 2021. The devolved Administrations are all currently working on IVMS projects for their respective under-12-metre fleets. In comparison, REM includes integrated onboard systems of cameras, gear sensors, video storage and global positioning system units that capture comprehensive video of fishing activities. As I have highlighted, we do not want REM to be exclusively and alone an enforcement tool; we think that there are many other attributes of that system.
I know this was a point all noble Lords were concerned about, but I will flag up the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Cameron, who asked for a date for REM implementation. I particularly refer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh in saying that we are already using REM. The Government are clear that we will be consulting on increasing the use of REM in the first half of 2021, with implementation following that. I am not in a position to give a precise date today for when this will be implemented, but I can absolutely say—and I want to put this on the record—that the Government are absolutely seized of the importance of REM. Indeed, other technologies may come along in the future that will also assist us with all the things that we hope and intend that REM will do, as I have described. However, I understand and accept that everyone wants action on this; I share that feeling, as do the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State.
I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who highlighted the importance of transparency in quota setting. I agree with them, and that is why we supported my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on Report, which provided further transparency about the criteria used by setting this in the Bill. These amendments also made clear the link between the fisheries objectives and quota distribution through Clause 22. That means that the fisheries administrations will need to explain, through the joint fisheries statement, how their policies on quota allocation contribute to the achievement of the fisheries objectives. As I have said, six of the eight are environmentally focused.
The Secretary of State’s determination for UK fishing opportunities will be required to be laid before Parliament under Clause 25(2) in the version of the Bill that went to the House of Commons. This will be an additional opportunity for scrutiny not previously available under the EU system. There is still more that we need to do to achieve our ambitions for the marine environment. The Government are already taking action through our work to implement the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries management plans. The Bill will put in place the framework to make that action even stronger.
I received some questions. If there are any that I do not answer fully enough, in my opinion, I will write to noble Lords, but I hope I have answered most of them. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about foreign-owned vessels and the economic link. Foreign-owned but UK-flagged vessels will continue to be allowed to fish in UK waters. They will need to meet the economic link criteria, as all UK vessels must. In England, our consultation proposes strengthening these criteria, realising an ever-greater benefit from these boats.
The noble Lord also asked about REM. We are clear that it is a route forward, and we want to make sure that its uses can be maximised beyond enforcement, as I said. My noble friend Lord Caithness made a point that I addressed in my earlier remarks: I think we all agree that it is much better that we work with industry to get this done because that is how we will have the right arrangements to ensure that the fishing industry—this is why I quoted those remarks from Cornwall and elsewhere; it is something that we increasingly need—sees the quest for sustainability as the heart and soul of what it is doing.
My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to negotiations. As the Bill is negotiations-neutral, for me to start speculating on any deal may not be helpful to your Lordships today. Our quota consultation makes clear that we want to do something different with additional quota so that it is not distributed through FQA units. In relation to fleet capacity, currently managed by restrictive licensing and quota allocation, we believe that the fleet could catch additional quota with no need for expansion.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the National Security and Investment Bill. I will make sure that that point is put to my colleagues, but I am afraid I am not in a position to opine on it myself. My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about buy-back. The quota consultation asked for views on different ways of distributing additional quota negotiated. This relates not to a buy-back scheme but to different ways for fishers to access quota in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about the “national benefit objective” in Clause 1, which will require the fisheries administrations to set out their policies for achieving benefits for the UK from fish caught by UK boats—a clear reference to the economic link.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about port development. My understanding is that this is subject to habitats and other regulatory regimes. Plans are also subject to environmental assessment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, rightly asked about new entrants. I should have said that it is not just fishers’ grandchildren but their children whom we want to be engaged in this sustainable harvest, with excellent food coming from our waters. Helping to safeguard the industry’s future by encouraging new entrants is very important. We will look at how we can best work with industry to encourage that as part of our work to reform the fisheries management regime.
There was also a reference to the landing requirement. I have to mention carefully the helpful comments and messages that we—or other noble Lords—sent to the other place. On the point about landing requirements,  we have brought forward this consultation on the proposal to increase the landing requirement to 70% to incentivise a higher level of landings into the UK and to ensure a stronger link between vessels fishing UK waters and the UK economy. This figure has been chosen because we believe it strikes the right balance between the need for a strengthened link and recognition that it is appropriate for some vessels to land their catch outside the UK, while demonstrating an economic link through quota donations. As I said, we are seeking views in our consultation on the appropriateness of the 70% figure.
I will look at Hansard, but I want to confirm, so there is no ambiguity, that I absolutely recognise the points all noble Lords have made in their amendments. It is why I set out in my opening remarks some of the action that is already being taken in the short term, as with Dogger Bank and shellfish. It is not that we want to be doing these things in years to come; we need to be doing them now, and we are doing them now. We need to work progressively so that, in our waters at least, we have a sustainable harvest with a sustainable environment, not just for the harvesting of the fish that we want to eat but for the entire ecosystem, which is clearly a key priority and responsibility of the UK Government. For those reasons, I beg to move my amendment.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have received no request to ask a short question of elucidation after the Minister. Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to contribute further? In which case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate and particularly those who spoke to my amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others who had a different take on what I was reading into the Government’s amendment, and I can understand there are several ways of interpreting it. I am still slightly at a loss about the point of port development, because I do not think that actually impacts decisions to set fishing quotas above sustainable levels, but I shall leave it there.
Despite my prodding the Government once or twice, I still believe they have the environment at the heart of their policies. I shall continue to ensure as best I can that that is the case, but I am an optimist, and I think we will see further measures coming forward that will encourage me. I shall continue to talk about the marine environment and fishes, but I can assure my noble friends in the Government Whips’ Office that any plans they had for me to sleep with the fishes are unfounded, as I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Motion 1A (as an amendment to Amendment 1) withdrawn.
Motion 1B (as an amendment to Amendment 1) not moved.
Motion on Amendment 1 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 2

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
2: Clause 2, page 3, line 37, leave out “18 months” and insert “two years”

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, as your Lordships will have seen in my letter of 3 November to all Peers, the House of Commons agreed a number of changes to the Bill. I hope my letter was helpful in setting out the reasons for those changes.
Amendment 2 extends the timeframe for the publication of the joint fisheries statement from 18 months after Royal Assent to 24 months. This change was necessary due to the delays in the passage of the Fisheries Bill, mostly, latterly, as a result of Covid-19. Had this amendment not been made, key stages of the drafting and adoption processes would have fallen within the pre-election periods for all three of the devolved legislatures, and so they requested we make this change. We believe it would not be appropriate to be making potentially new policy decisions as part of the JFS drafting process during any pre-election period.
Amendment 5 expressly allows the publication of personal data relating to funding recipients, and Amendments 66, 67 and 68 make equivalent provision in relation to the devolved Administrations’ funding powers. There should be transparency when public funds are made available. The publication of such data is in the public interest and facilitates fraud deterrence and detection. The publication of data on grant beneficiaries was raised during the development of our future funding scheme, and this amendment expressly addresses this concern.
Amendment 77 and the consequential Amendments 13 and 27 strengthen existing legislative protections for seals in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. The amendments greatly restrict the circumstances in which any intentional killing of a wild seal is lawfully permitted. We have, however, retained important exemptions: it will, for instance, still be lawful to euthanise a wild seal suffering from catastrophic injury, pain or disease.
These changes are necessary for the UK to comply with new import regulations being implemented in the United States of America. From January 2022, the United States will only allow imports of fisheries products from countries that do not allow the killing, injuring or taking of marine mammals as part of commercial fisheries. Not complying with this requirement would result in a significant loss of export revenue for the United Kingdom. In 2019, wild-capture exports to the United States were worth approximately £13.3 million.
Given the possible impact of this change on the catching sector, Defra undertook a targeted consultation in England before committing to any changes. Defra also agreed to legislate on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, and their respective legislative regime for seals needed time to be worked through. For both these reasons, this amendment had to be introduced at a later stage in the Bill’s passage.
Both environmental non-governmental organisations and parts of industry have responded positively to this change in legislation. The Seal Research Trust said this would improve the welfare of seals. Parts of industry highlighted the potential future importance of the US market.
Amendments 98 and 100 extend specific existing exceptions from landing obligations in the north-western waters and the North Sea respectively so that they apply until 31 December 2021. Two new exemptions are also introduced relating to Norway lobster in the North Sea, replacing an existing exemption and an exemption for plaice in the North Sea that will also be implemented by the EU from January.
These exemptions are supported by scientific evidence collected by the EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, which we considered with our world-class scientists in Cefas. We have been clear that scientific evidence will underpin our future fisheries management policies. This particular science and analysis were only available after Report stage in your Lordships’ House.
The other part of Amendment 100 enables the UK to adopt its own conservation measures for North Sea cod from next year, which will apply to all vessels fishing in UK waters by revoking provisions in retained EU law.
Turning to the more minor and technical amendments agreed by the other place, Amendment 8 inserts “sea fishing” to clarify the scope of regulation-making powers under Clauses 36 and 38. Amendment 17 makes a small change to the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” to make clear that it aligns with the widely accepted approach. Amendment 28 removes the Lords privilege amendment. This is a routine procedural issue. Finally, Amendments 78 and 79 update references to two regulations that have been replaced.
The Bill has been enhanced by these changes, ensuring we have the necessary legislation in place to develop our approach to future fisheries management. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: What a delicious irony, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said. We were told that this Bill could not be amended by ourselves due to devolution—look at all the amendments here—and now we have found out the United States can change this Bill but we cannot. It is a great irony, and interesting arguments about territoriality are coming out. What is interesting is that there is no better ammunition than this to show, if we have a trade deal with the United States, that we should not be having chlorinated chicken or the other things we talk about, given that we have had to concede on seal welfare—not that I do not welcome sea welfare.
What I welcome in particular is the transparency element that comes in. This is important for making it absolutely clear who receives grant schemes or other schemes to help the industry, as any other industry, and how those are received, so we can have a good audit of that process. I welcome that very much.
In terms of the landing in north-west waters, that is an illustration where I agree with the Government. There has to be pragmatism around how we operate  the landing of fish. That is why making the detail of that in future, as we discussed in the last group, will be quite complex but essential. Do I take it from that that the exemption is for only one year? Is that exemption there only until the Government have decided what the broader landing rules are? That is my real question.

Lord Grantchester: I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for the letter dated 3 November explaining the Commons amendments to your Lordships’ House, where the Bill started. Many of these amendments followed up on suggestions and inquiries initiated here, which the Government have had time to consider further during the Summer Recess, including in several consultations.
Once again, this House had a serious impact, delivering improvements to government legislation. These amendments provide examples of that work and could be categorised as important but may be more minor policy changes, drafting improvements and corrections.
Amendment 2 is one such amendment where, following probing, the initial provision for publication of the joint fisheries statement was set at 18 months after Royal Assent. The new proposal is to extend this to 24 months, as the noble Lord said. The pandemic and a succession of pre-election purdahs have resulted in slippages. I am glad that the Government have been able to be realistic—something it is often difficult to praise them for. However, having said that, it is frustrating that we will not get to see the outcome of that process for quite a while. Perhaps the Government will not need all the extra time that they have given themselves; we remain ever hopeful.
Amendment 5 is another example where, following debates and then amendments in the Agriculture Bill, the Government have come forward to provide explicit clarity that this extra provision does not contravene compliance with data provisions in the GDPR. We welcome this consistency and Amendment 66, regarding Scotland, Amendment 67, regarding Wales and Amendment 68, regarding Northern Ireland, which follow up with the devolved Administrations.
Amendments 13 and 27 and new Schedule 9 in Amendment 77 on the conservation of seals would strengthen protections to comply with the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, as necessary before 1 March 2021 to be able to export fish products to America. While this provision gave rise to some controversy concerning seals specifically, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pick up on the fact that to encourage exports the UK is prepared to change how it does business. However, when challenged on maintaining standards provisions on imported food in the Agriculture Bill, the Government claim that they cannot require compliance with UK provisions for imports. The shadow Secretary of State, Luke Pollard, mentioned trade from New Zealand, which does not have these added protections and from where we will continue to import product. Does the Minister see any double standard here?
He might like to dance on the head of a pin—we will enjoy that—saying that this compliance is with conservation of seals provisions, not food standards. What if there is any re-export of food products to  the US? Alternatively, I recognise Monday’s conversion in the Agriculture Bill that, under CRaG amendments, it is now recognised that there will not be a non-regression of standards and the Government should no longer be peddling that line.
Amendment 17 is a further amendment of second thoughts on drafting. It would make a small change to the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” to specify individual fish in terms of their maturity size and not the size of the marine stock. We support this amendment and also support Amendment 8 in relation to sea fishing of boats. I note that Amendment 28 in this group removes financial privilege from the legislation as the Bill started in your Lordships’ House.
The remaining amendments are technical corrections and additions to Commission-delegated regulations, which will avoid further secondary orders. With those comments, we are entirely content with the amendments proposed.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester, for their welcome of these amendments.
I welcome the positivity from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the importance of transparency. It is something that the Government have picked up on in terms of recognition. I again put on the record that all we—this Government and future Governments—do needs to be transparent as we seek to reassure everyone, including your Lordships, that we want to achieve success for the marine environment.
I welcome the noble Lord’s point about pragmatism. The exemption is in place only for one year. We are reviewing our future discards policy and considering how it could be better made to fit the mixed fisheries in UK seas.
Given the time allocated, I am not sure that I want to jest about the Agriculture Bill and some of the exchanges we may have. Of course, I am bound to say that, as everyone knows, there is a considerable legislative framework behind which we are all secure in terms of import standards and requirements in relation to agricultural goods—but perhaps we might leave that for a further moment.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that we will publicly consult on the JFS next year so I am certainly not looking at needing to wait as long as might have been suggested—two years—before anyone sees it. Drafts are being shared at a high level. Again, it is important that, as we move forward on all these matters, Parliament and your Lordships’ House do the right thing. In the end, if we do not get this right, we will have failed; that is not something that any Government would wish to do with their custodianship of our seas and the opportunities that this responsibility presents to us.
With those comments and the general endorsement of the two noble Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have received no requests to ask a short question. I beg your pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, wishes to ask a question.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I will not detain the House. I have a quick question that arose from a question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Will extending the timeframe of the joint fisheries statement to 24 months have a knock-on effect on fisheries management plans? I just want to check with the Minister that that delay will not cause everything else to be delayed. I apologise for not asking this earlier.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, so that I do not mislead the noble Lord, I will write to him about that. Triggering work on the fisheries management plans is another stream of work; a response may come. As it has not, the easiest thing is for me to write to the noble Lord. It is an important point and I am sorry that I do not have the answer before me.
Motion on Amendment 2 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 3 to 5

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 5.
3: Clause 18, page 13, line 33, leave out Clause 18
4: Clause 27, page 18, line 7, leave out Clause 27
5: Clause 35, page 24, line 15, at end insert—“(c) require the Secretary of State, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.(4A) In subsection (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;(b) the amount of the financial assistance;(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
Motion on Amendments 3 to 5 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 6

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: Moved by Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.
6: Clause 39, page 27, leave out lines 5 to 8

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations in the development of the Bill. This has led to various requests from them for additions to the Bill, many of which could otherwise have been made under their own legislation. The department’s preference is to be collaborative and constructive when working with the devolved Administrations. Given the pressure that parliamentary timetables are facing it was felt that, in  this spirit of co-operation, the Government should make these changes for them. These amendments support a collaborative approach to fisheries management across the UK.
We have waited until now to make these changes as we wanted to ensure that the devolved Administrations’ legislative consent processes had been successfully completed before tabling some of these amendments. It was not until Report in the other House that all three DAs consented to the Bill, allowing for the other place to agree a package of amendments relating to the DAs. The amendments relating to the devolved Administrations’ functions can be divided into seven themes, and I shall explain what each theme does.
At the request of all three Administrations, Amendment 10 and consequential Amendments 23 and 40 will enable a sea fish licensing authority to exercise fisheries and related product movement functions on behalf of another such authority. This would facilitate arrangements for one Administration to become a single point of contact for the fishing industry, or to deliver a speedy process on behalf of the other Administrations. This could be used, for example, in relation to verifying catch certificates. Consequential Amendments 6, 15 and 16, 18 to 20, 41, 69, 71 and 75 move definitions so that they apply across the whole Bill.
Turning to technical SI extensions to foreign boats, the Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA, requested that we extend technical fisheries management measures in some of their secondary legislation to foreign boats, as provided for in Amendment 39. Amendments 29 to 38 make consequential changes to Schedule 4 as a result of Amendment 39. These regulations help protect vulnerable stocks, for example by prohibiting the catching of undersized fish. This is in line with our policy of ensuring that any foreign boats given access to UK waters comply with restrictions that apply to UK boats. Similar provisions have been made in Schedule 2 for England and Wales statutory instruments. Noble Lords will understand the pressures of getting the statute book updated in readiness for the end of the transition period. It would have been very challenging for the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to have delivered these changes to secondary legislation themselves.
As for procedural changes, at the request of the Scottish Government, Amendment 43 and consequential Amendment 25 confirm that orders made under Section 22A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 can be made under the negative procedure, which is not clear under the current drafting. At the request of Scottish Government lawyers, and following advice from UK Government lawyers, these changes are applied retrospectively to remove any uncertainty about the effect of existing Scottish statutory instruments.
Turning to Wales, the definition change and Senedd competence, Amendments 12 and 24 reflect a change requested by the Welsh Government to the definition of “Wales” in primary legislation, consequential on the extension of Welsh competence provided by the Bill in relation to the offshore zone. Additionally, Amendments 7 and 73 clarify that where the Senedd has legislative competence, subject to the consent of a Minister of the Crown, Welsh Ministers will also have  equivalent executive competence, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. Amendment 72 clarifies that the scope of the Welsh Ministers’ powers to make regulations under Clauses 36 and 38 is specific to sea fishing.
Regarding DAERA marine powers and other technical changes to Schedule 10, Amendment 85 and consequential Amendments 86 to 88, 90, 91 and 93 to 96 provide DAERA with the power to manage fishing activity in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purpose of conserving the marine environment. Similar provision for England and the other devolved Administrations is in Schedule 10. At their request, we are also making minor changes to the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers in Schedule 10 in government Amendments 80 to 84, 89 and 92. These include changes to the parliamentary procedure for some orders and adding time limits to emergency orders made by Scottish Ministers.
In conclusion, I am pleased that the devolved Administrations have now consented to the Bill, which is an excellent example of collaborative working. I hope noble Lords will appreciate the need for this package of amendments agreed to in the other place, which supports the alignment of fisheries management across the UK. I beg to move.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this hefty group of amendments. These amendments deal with requests from the devolved Administrations, as she said. Most are consequential on four main amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I am interested in the way the devolved Administrations have amended the Bill, when during our debates in Committee and on Report we were told that there could be no amendments that might affect the devolved Administrations.
The main amendments are Amendments 10, 12, 39 and 85, alongside a raft of minor drafting amendments. Amendment 10 and the amendments consequential on it—Amendments 15 and 16, 18 to 20, 23, 40 and 41, 69, 71 and 75—provide arrangements for a sea fish licensing authority, which is the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the Northern Ireland department and the MMO. We support these. Amendments 12 and 24 are consequential on Clause 43 and relate to the interpretation of the Welsh legislation, in both English and Welsh, and to the offshore zone, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval.
Amendment 39, which is extremely important, inserts legislation relating to several regulations affecting shellfish, scallops, sharks, skates and rays, razor clams, et cetera, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments 29 to 38 are consequential on Amendment 39. The fish and shellfish in the list in this amendment are nearly all endangered in one way or another, and it is important that there is transparency over their protection and that they are not overfished or taken undersized, as the Minister said. The list is extensive; as it is at the request of the devolved Administrations, we are happy to support these amendments, but we make the point that these fish and shellfish need to be sustainable and their stocks carefully monitored.
Amendment 85 and consequential amendments insert new powers into the Schedule for the Northern Ireland department relating to exploitation of sea fishery resources in its offshore region. This also includes consultation with the Secretary of State, the MMO, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Consultation has risen rapidly up the fishing agenda on a range of matters, and consultation with the devolved Administrations is essential. The sheer number of amendments we are debating today indicates that some of this can be very last minute—that is a bit of a danger. However, there are legitimate reasons for these amendments and for them being so late, so we support them, albeit at a somewhat late stage of the process.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I intend to speak quite briefly, but first, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of these changes. Having looked at the small, technical amendments in this group, I do not have a problem with them, but I return to the issue of devolution in the broadest sense. I raised earlier the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised: because it has now been raised several times, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain why we were told that the Bill was a done deal with the devolved nations and could not be amended, when it seems, quite understandably, that negotiations have been ongoing, as evidenced obviously by the amendments before us today. It leaves a slightly sour taste because it feels as if we were slightly misled about the process that was taking place. Can she clarify that for us?
It is not surprising that the Government have continued to meet with the devolved nations, and we welcome that. But, if that were the case and it was an ongoing process, why could not some of our earlier amendments have been fed into that consultation process, considered and dealt with in that broad and positive way, rather than being blocked? I would genuinely like an answer to that, because we want to work constructively, going forward.
The other part is that what has been happening seems rather odd. Can the Minister explain what timeframes were given to the devolved nations? Were they told what the deadlines were to feed in comments and make interventions? It is not ideal for these things to come to us so late, so I would like a bit more information on what was happening in the background to all this.
Thirdly, some of the amendments are quite substantial, as we can see from the detail listed, and they have consequences for the devolved nations. In the Commons, the Minister Victoria Prentis made the point that was echoed by the noble Baroness today that this is all the product of collaborative and constructive working. Similarly to the noble Baroness, she went on to say:
“Many are amendments that the devolved Administrations could have made themselves, but given the pressures on all the parliamentary timetables in the run-up to the end of the transition period, we felt that in a spirit of co-operation we should, if possible, make these changes for them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; col. 264.]
As the Minister has confirmed, it was decided that, for example, because the Scottish fisheries Bill has now finished all its stages, we would slip it into the UK legislation instead.
I feel a level of unease about this process. We have to be careful that our motives are not misinterpreted. It does not feel right just to look for a convenient bit of legislation, whether devolved or UK, and harness things to it. While there is nothing wrong with the clauses, and I am sure they have been through the proper scrutiny process, we need to be clear about how devolved decision-making will play out in the future and where responsibilities lie. That is particularly important for the people affected by these changes, who need to understand who is making the decisions and where to find the detail of that legislation.
I ask the Minister to confirm that this was just a one-off and is not intended to be a regular occurrence. As I say, I have a sense of unease about what has happened here. I am not going to say any more about it. I am pleased that constructive discussions are taking place, but just wanted to raise a note of caution. Perhaps the noble Baroness could respond.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, there has been much debate on the challenges posed by devolution in previous stages of the Bill, and the amendments made for the devolved Administrations in the other place demonstrate opportunities that will be open to us in the future to work positively across the four nations of the UK. I acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, but genuinely feel that this was a timing issue. As the Fisheries Bill was introduced in this House, it gave us more time to introduce them at this stage, when it came back to us, once conversations had concluded and after it became clear that there would be no time for the devolved Administrations to pass their own legislation, and we would therefore be in a position to do so on their behalf.
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and for her support. I am particularly grateful for her comments on Amendment 39. The whole intention of extending this list is for us to preserve stocks from an extensive list of species. I am glad that, through constructive and collaborative working with the devolved Administrations, we have been able to deliver a Bill that is truly for the whole UK. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question of elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Lord Adonis?
I have to inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is proposing to speak in Grand Committee and his request has arrived, somewhat erratically, at the wrong Chamber.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: It was a moment of puzzlement for me, too. Given that, as far as I understand it, we have no other questions for the Minister, I will proceed to put the Question.
Motion on Amendment 6 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 7 and 8

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7 and 8.
7: Clause 41, page 28, line 24, after “Senedd Cymru” insert “(ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006)”
8: Clause 41, page 28, line 31, after “of” insert “sea fishing by”
Motion on Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 9

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9.
9: Clause 41, page 28, line 40, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 41 and insert “, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, four themes of the changes made by the Government relate to the Bill’s licensing provisions. I would like to make it clear why these changes were necessary and why they were made in the other place. Before I do so, I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, today—if that is all right with your Lordships—that fisheries management plans will not be delayed and can be brought forward before the JFS is adopted. Clause 9 specifically provides for this. I am sorry; I should know the Bill better by now, but I hope that helps.
Government Amendments 11 and 26 are necessary to ensure we comply with the provisions of the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands. That 1999 agreement provides for a special area in the UK exclusive economic zone, exclusively in Scottish waters, over which both parties exercise jurisdiction for fishery management purposes. The amendments to the Bill ensure that we can implement this treaty and meet that international agreement. They provide that Faroese-authorised foreign vessels can continue to fish in that area, which is 0.01% of the UK EEZ, without also requiring a UK licence. Were these amendments not made, we would not be able to implement the treaty, putting us in breach of our international obligations.
It was only through working on a new framework fisheries agreement with the Faroe Islands throughout this year that we were able to agree the approach to continued implementation of the 1999 treaty and to make these amendments. We have a very positive relationship with the Faroe Islands on improving the way the sea is managed and governed. International negotiations are reserved, but implementing international agreements, for example by licensing fishing boats, is a devolved matter. We have worked closely with officials and Minister Ewing in the Scottish Government, and colleagues across government, to come to an agreed approach that respects both reserved and devolved competence.
Amendments 44 to 63 introduce a contingency arrangement to issue approval for foreign fishing vessels more quickly and make a consequential wording change. The preferred approach is to issue individual licences to foreign vessels which, following negotiations, may fish in UK waters. Experience has shown that, sometimes, some annual fisheries negotiations can extend into the next fishing year. It could then take some time for the various parties to collate the information needed for the licensing process. During this time, fishing activities would be disrupted, which could cause unnecessary tensions. We do not want to exacerbate those tensions or disrupt fishing further. This is a pragmatic response to such a circumstance and has the support of the devolved Administrations.
To manage this, the other place agreed to introduce this contingency approach, which would allow approval to be issued for a list of vessels, rather than individual vessels. This approval would be faster, but time limited until individual licences can be issued.
Amendment 64 revokes legislation in England, Wales and Scotland made as a contingency in March 2019 in the absence of the Fisheries Bill and in anticipation of an earlier departure from the EU. The Northern Irish legislation has already been revoked. The Bill provides for the regulation of foreign boats fishing in UK waters if access is negotiated. All foreign vessels approved to fish in UK waters will need a UK licence. We waited until we thought we had certainty that the Bill would receive Royal Assent before the end of this year before making these amendments as its licensing regime replicates and supersedes that in the contingency SIs.
Amendment 99 and consequential Amendments 97 and 101 are clear examples of where close collaboration between the four fisheries administrations has proved invaluable in ensuring that the Bill is doing what it needs to. The amendment revokes Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, known as SMEFF. This regulation sets out part of the EU’s licensing framework. This is broadly similar to the UK’s framework for licensing so there is no need for a parallel regime such as SMEFF. I am grateful to Scottish officials for identifying the need for this change. That is why the other place agreed to revoke it.
Finally, on minor and technical amendments relating to licensing, Amendments 9, 70, 74 and 76 make minor changes to provisions that prevent powers in Clauses 36, 38, and Schedule 8 being used to modify the Bill’s licensing functions. Amendment 65 clarifies licensing transitional provisions. Two amendments were also made at the request of the Crown dependencies to Schedule 4, which deals with minor and consequential licensing amendments.
These are the changes that have been needed to the Bill’s licensing provisions and why they were brought forward in the other place. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the Minister, because I had never heard of this 1999 treaty before. It is quite important because we are in the ratification process of a UK-Faroes fisheries agreement. I will raise one or two things about this which perhaps the Minister can explain to me.
Commons Amendment 11 is very strict. It says:
“No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to … anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat”
that is a Faroe Islands-regulated vessel. Given that this is our EEZ, that seems to take away completely our rights to inspect or apply any regulation whatever to Faroes vessels fishing within our EEZ within this special zone. That seems a very asymmetric agreement or condition, given that our own vessels presumably still have to do that. Having read the treaty very quickly, Article IV says that we have no rights of inspection whatever. I am sure that the Government have this worked out but I would like to be reassured that we have some way of making sure that this area is responsibly fished. Occasionally, we have our disagreements with the Faroes. We generally have a good relationship with the Faroes, and obviously with Denmark as the ultimate sovereign nation. However, a couple of years ago we had a strong dispute over fisheries there regarding a particular species, so there are examples of the Faroes and us falling out. I would appreciate the Minister’s explanation of that.
I wished to bring up one other matter but I will leave it at that. That is my key issue on this area and I hope that the Minister will be able to help me.

Lord Grantchester: I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for his explanations. I am also grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This group relates mainly to the carve-out for the Faroe Islands temporary foreign vessel licences and other minor technical provisions. Amendments 9, 70, 74 and 76 are technical and replace references to the devolved Ministers in Clause 41 with “sea fish licensing authorities” instead.
Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 26 update compliance with the 1999 treaty with Denmark and enable the Scottish Government to manage this shared area and issue licences to permitted foreign vessels as the Faroes, while in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, are exclusively in Scottish waters. I am not sure that there should be the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, envisages, but I await the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 44 and the bulk of the amendments in the sequence in the middle of this group concern the definition of “temporary foreign vessel licence” and how this will apply on a contingent basis when the UK becomes an independent coastal state with an agreement with the EU concerning the UK’s exclusive economic zone and licensing arrangements. Necessarily, this could take some time—meanwhile, fishers need to be able to continue activities. I agree that the flexibility this provides is commendable. In the Commons, the shadow Secretary of State Luke Pollard asked whether secondary legislation would need amendment to specify these arrangements. The Fisheries Minister Victoria Prentis said that she would need to check this position. Will the Minister be able to confirm today that this has indeed been done and that no further orders are required?
The point of these provisions is made on the assumption that the UK will be able to negotiate a continuing relationship with the EU after 31 December  this year. That is not that far in front of us. Many of us are beginning to count down the remaining parliamentary sitting days, during which timetable the various relevant trade treaties will need to be examined and approved by Parliament. On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke on the likely outcome of the way forward in relation to the landing requirement. The Minister replied that the Bill is neutral on any outcome of negotiation. I will not pursue this any further, as I sympathise with him when he says that any comment from him may not be helpful at this stage.
The remaining amendments are technical, tidying up various provisions. For example, Amendment 64 concerns the timing of differing legislation at different times of the tortuous Brexit debates. Amendments 21 and 42 concern provisions in Schedule 4 regarding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the extent of Section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act, as the Crown dependencies did not confirm their approach until the beginning of August. I am very glad that this bit was achieved with them. The remaining amendments tidy up retained direct EU legislation. This and all the amendments in this group are agreed.
We will all look forward to the necessary announcements on the conclusion of successful negotiations with the EU. I contend that they should now become easier following the amendments to the Agriculture Bill to secure a non-regression of standards so necessary to the attainment of a level playing field with Europe.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester. We are into a technical range of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the Faroe Islands. While the 1999 treaty permits either party to license foreign vessels to fish in this small section of shared sea, it does not mean that there are no rules. Many of the licence conditions will be similar for either party issuing a licence. The UK will still exercise standard control and enforcement. The 1999 treaty also includes a commitment by both parties to co-operate on marine protection measures which further preserve this area.
Considerable work has been done. Certain discussions could obviously be undertaken only once we had left the EU, so negotiations with the Faroe Islands Administration have been taking place this year. I reassure your Lordships that in no way does this mean that there is not proper responsible control. As I said in my opening remarks, we are working with the Faroe Islands because both countries share an ambition for strong governance and custodianship of what is a very small but very important part of our UK EEZ. We should be consistent throughout.
I will look at any further points, but I am not going to embark on any commentary on negotiations and standards. This has been well and truly aired. Standards are supreme.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have two requests to ask short questions of the Minister. Both noble Lords are in the Chamber. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am here because of the problems I experienced with my microphone yesterday. I have two brief questions for my noble friend. I am half-Danish, so I welcome anything that can be done to help the Faroese. Does he not share my concern that this agreement with the Faroes is completely asymmetrical? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson might also have made this point. From memory of the rollover trade agreement, we export £90 million of goods to them and they export £270 million of products to us—most of which are fish. This will not help Scottish and other fishermen in this country. I agree to it, but we must accept that it is asymmetrical and not in the country’s best interests.
I have a hazy recollection of studying international law at university—just after we joined the European Union. Denmark has always claimed historic rights to fish in the North Sea. I understood—from an impeccable source at the Daily Express—that it has been preparing a case to put, presumably, before the International Court of Justice to maintain those historic rights. I am not expecting my noble friend to reply today—he may wish to write to me and share it with other colleagues. Is he aware of this hazy recollection of mine that the Danes had historic fishing rights and that they are going to resurrect them?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, we agreed to a treaty in 1999. We have worked closely with Minister Ewing, who is quite rightly ferocious in his support of Scottish fishing interests. We are working collaboratively with the Faroe Islands, respecting an international arrangement. On the historic rights, as I am not the Fisheries Minister but a custodian of this Bill I am not aware of any illegal activity. I had better write to my noble friend so that those who know can give an authorised version.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to ask the next short question of the Minister.

Lord Lansley: I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House. We are spending a lot of time not only looking at the content of treaties, but also understanding how these are implemented into domestic legislation. I am confused. Can my noble friend explain how the 1999 treaty to which this refers was implemented into domestic legislation? Why did this not lead directly to its continuation or amendment? This is the second time we have looked at this Bill; in the first draft, licensing of fishing boats in our EEZ was considered.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I may need to clarify this again. We were not able to open discussions with the Faroe Islands while we were still members of the EU. It was only in January 2020—at the same time as the Bill was introduced—that we were able to begin discussions and explore options to implement this change. I am not an expert on the 1999 legislation. It would be more helpful to my noble friend if I wrote to him with a detailed answer.
Motion on Amendment 9 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 10 to 13

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10 to 13.
10: Before Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—“Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities(1) A sea fish licensing authority may make arrangements for—(a) any of its fisheries functions, or(b) any of its product movement functions that are not fisheries functions,to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority.(2) Arrangements made by a sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) in relation to a function do not affect that authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function.(3) A sea fish licensing authority that exercises functions on behalf of another sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) may charge that other authority such fees as it considers reasonable in respect of the cost of doing so.(4) Subsection (1) does not authorise the making of arrangements in relation to any function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation.(5) The power of a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements under subsection (1) does not affect, and is not affected by, any other power of the authority to make arrangements relating to the exercise of its functions by other persons on its behalf.(6) In this section—“fisheries function” means a function relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture;“product movement function” means a function relating to the movement of fishery products—(a) into or out of the United Kingdom, or(b) within the United Kingdom.”
11: Insert the following new Clause—“Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands regulated.(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.(3) In this section—(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,  relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the FaroeIslands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.”
12: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—“Interpretation of Welsh legislation(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.(3) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In relation to a provision that—(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and(b) is contained in an instrument made after section 45 of theFisheries Act 2020 comes into force,“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)(a)in the English language text, insert—“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”(7) After section 40(a) in the English language text insert—“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zoneIn relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seawardlimits of the territorial sea.”;(b) in the Welsh language text insert—“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth CymruMewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—“Welsh zone (parth Cymru)“Welsh zone” has the meaning given by section 158 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (and see article 3 of the Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/ 760), which makes provision about the limits of the zone)”;(b) in the Welsh language text, after the entry for “offeryn UE (EU instrument)” insert—  “parth Cymru (Welsh zone)mae i “parth Cymru” yr ystyr a roddir i “Welsh zone” gan adran 158 o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 (p. 32) (a gweler erthygl 3 o Orchymyn Parth Cymru (Ffiniau a Throsglwyddo Swyddogaethau) 2010 (O.S. 2010/760), sy’n gwneud darpariaeth ynghylch terfynau’r parth)”.”
13: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—“Conservation of SealsSchedule (conservation of seals) contains amendments of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) in connection with prohibiting the killing, injuring or taking of seals.”
Motion on Amendments 10 to 13 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 14

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14.
14: Clause 48, page 31, line 20, leave out Clause 48
Motion 14A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 14) not moved.
Motion on Amendment 14 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 15 to 21

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 21.
15: Clause 49, page 32, leave out lines 16 and 17
16: Clause 51, page 34, line 40, at end insert—““fishery products” means—(a) fish or other aquatic organisms resulting from fishing or aquaculture, or(b) products derived from aquatic organisms within paragraph(a);”
17: Clause 51, page 35 leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—““minimum conservation reference size”, in relation to an aquatic organism, means the size of a member of the species of which the organism is a member, at the level of maturity of that organism, below which capture or retention is prohibited or restricted;”
18: Clause 51, page 35, line 28, at end insert—““Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);”
19: Clause 51, page 36, line 9, at end insert—““sea fish licensing authority” means—(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Welsh Ministers,(c) the Northern Ireland department, or(d) the Marine Management Organisation;”
20: Clause 51, page 36, line 24, at end insert—““subordinate legislation” means an instrument made under primary legislation or under retained direct EU legislation;”
21: Clause 52, page 37, line 3, leave out “revocation made by paragraph 5” and insert “repeals and revocations made by paragraphs 3 to 5” 22 Page 37, line 4, at end insert—“(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the following provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 38 (power to make provision for the purpose of implementing international obligations),(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section,  (c) section 39 (interpretation of section 38),(d) sections 41 to 43 (regulations under section 36: scope and procedure),(e) section 50 (regulations), and(f) section 51 (interpretation).”
Motion on Amendments 15 to 21 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 22

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 22.
22: Clause 52, page 37, line 4, at end insert—“(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the following provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 38 (power to make provision for the purpose of implementing international obligations),(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section,(c) section 39 (interpretation of section 38),(d) sections 41 to 43 (regulations under section 36: scope and procedure),(e) section 50 (regulations), and(f) section 51 (interpretation).”

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, this clause enables the UK to extend to the Crown dependencies by way of Order in Council the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of implementing international obligations relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture.
The UK Government, on behalf of the Crown, are responsible for the international relations of the Crown dependencies. The Government are responsible for representing them at an international level for their obligations under international law. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that we can support the Crown dependencies to meet their international obligations.
This debate comes at a time when the Crown dependencies are developing their own international identities in accordance with the directions of their Governments and of formal frameworks agreed between them and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the UK remains responsible for the Crown dependencies’ fisheries obligations under international law.
This clause is not a means of imposing legislation unnecessarily on the Crown dependencies. It is for the benefit and protection of the UK and the Crown dependencies in relation to international obligations in the highly unlikely event that it were needed. It applies solely to the part of Clause 36 which concerns the power to make regulations implementing international obligations relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture. It enables us to meet our responsibilities and obligations in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her letter of 28 October, on behalf of the Constitution Committee. The committee published its views on the clause on 9 November, following my response to her letter. The committee makes some important points on which I should like to respond.
First, the committee says:
“The Government should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated”.
Such an approach is entirely appropriate in the majority of cases. The inclusion of a permissive extent clause in primary legislation is not uncommon. It is used to help provide support or act as a safety net. For example, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides for marine licensing provisions to be extended to Jersey by Order in Council. However, the reason for introducing this clause is to enable us to act in the most unexpected and unforeseen of circumstances. Having legal and constitutional clarity is an important responsibility for the Government to deliver.
I would like to make it clear that we do not doubt the seriousness with which the Crown dependencies treat their international obligations. They have a strong track record of fulfilling them. To that end, they can introduce domestic policy and legislation through proper parliamentary processes within their jurisdictions. It can be done swiftly when required. There is an example from earlier this year when the Bailiwick of Guernsey legislated within two weeks to introduce an authorisation regime to support fisheries arrangements with France.
However, one action taken by a part of the UK or any of its Crown dependencies can affect the rest. There is precedent for vessels from the British family being denied access to fisheries. Our fisheries exports could be banned from overseas markets if any part of the British family were considered not to be upholding its international obligations to fish legally and sustainably. We do not have any specific concerns where we envisage the use of the permissive extent clause at present. Nevertheless, by introducing this clause, the Government ensure that they could act should those most unexpected of circumstances arise.
Secondly, the committee says that this clause
“undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice.”
The Government are committed to the Crown dependencies’ centuries-old and evolving constitutional relationship with the Crown. They are committed to the long-standing constitutional convention that the UK does not impose legislation on the Crown dependencies, or otherwise become involved in areas of their own domestic autonomy, without their consent, other than in the most exceptional of circumstances.
The key rationale for introducing this clause is that the Government are responsible for the Crown dependencies’ international relations. In that regard, it is right in this set of circumstances that the Government should have the legal power to become involved in exceptional situations and as a matter of last resort. Should such a situation arise, concerns raised by the Crown dependencies on the use of this clause would of course be taken very seriously and would be responded to in a reasonable way.
As your Lordships may be aware, the Government secured consent from the Isle of Man to the inclusion of the permissive extent clause in the Bill, but Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey did not agree to the inclusion of this clause by the final amending stage of the Bill, so the Government took the decision to proceed without their agreement. This was not a decision the Government took lightly.
I assure your Lordships and the Crown dependencies that Defra would do its utmost to work with them to secure a mutually agreeable outcome should a situation in which we might need to use powers under the permissive extent clause ever arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said in his very helpful report from 2014, Crown Dependencies: Developments since 2010,
“It is important that the Crown Dependencies are consulted about policy changes which affect them in time to put their point of view.”
I wholly support that view.
My honourable friend the Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis, is discussing setting up a committee with the Crown dependencies, perhaps within the structure of the UK-Crown dependencies fisheries management agreements, to discuss implementation of international obligations. Such a committee could deal with issues that might lead to the activation of the permissive extent clause. It is not intended that this clause, and the regulation-making power it relates to, would be used to legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent, unless it were to become necessary to implement an international obligation that applies to them. As I have said, this would only ever be as a last resort, after full consultation and the exhaustion of all other options.
I reiterate that if one part of the United Kingdom or the Crown dependencies do not meet their international obligations, they will potentially all be held accountable. This clause supports all three Crown dependencies. It supports the four nations of the UK by putting in place a safety mechanism to ensure we meet our responsibilities in adhering to international obligations. It is most certainly not an undue imposition on the Crown dependencies. It is designed to protect the British family.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and all noble Lords, will accept what I have explained—that this is a necessary addition, to which the House of Commons agreed. I hope that your Lordships will accept this position. This clause specifically and only relates to fisheries and meeting international agreements—for example, on sustainable fishing. This is an area in which I believe that we must be able, in particular, to meet our responsibilities in terms of international law. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Motion 22A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 22)

Lord Beith: Moved by Lord Beith
Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

Lord Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation, and for dwelling on some of the constitutional aspects of the matter, but I am still moving Motion 22A, in my name, that this House disagrees with Commons Amendment 22, introducing, as it does, a power for Ministers to apply sections of the Fisheries Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man without their consent.
It came as an unpleasant surprise when the new clause appeared at such a late stage in the Bill’s progress. As the Minister indicated, my interest in such matters  dates from work I did on the 2010 and 2014 Justice Committee reports on the Crown dependencies, which analysed, assessed and promoted the modern relationship between the UK and the dependencies. In every relevant respect, that 2010 report was accepted by the Government of the day.
The report set out a relationship that respected the legislative autonomy of the dependencies, which would not normally be the subject of Westminster legislation unless they wished to be. Along with that went a policy of increasing entrustment, enabling the dependencies to develop their relations with the wider world, including, in the case of the Channel Islands, their very close neighbours in France.
The UK, of which the Crown dependencies are not, and never have been, a part, remains responsible for international treaty obligations of the dependencies. The framework agreements were put in to ensure that this could be done effectively, while respecting their autonomy. I shall quote from the Guernsey agreement of 2006, but the other dependencies have similar agreements. Paragraph 13 of that agreement says:
“Guernsey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK.”
The agreement continues:
“The UK recognises that Guernsey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Guernsey further developing its international identity … The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Guernsey’s international identity. The role is one of support not interference … Guernsey and the UK commit themselves to open, effective and meaningful dialogue with each other on any issue that may come to affect the constitutional relationship … International identity is developed effectively through meeting international standards and obligations which are important components of Guernsey’s international identity … The UK will clearly identify its priorities for delivery of its international obligations and agreements so that these are understood, and can be taken into account by Guernsey developing its own position.”
A key question for the Minister is: do the present UK Government stand by that agreement? The clause suggests otherwise. It represents a threat to impose Westminster legislation when there are adequate means available to resolve differences when they arise. The best way is bilateral discussion, in which the UK is clearly in a strong position, given its size and resources. In any case, the islands themselves have a strong commitment to maintain their British identity, and their international reputation for good government and good faith.
Alongside all that is the requirement that island legislation requires Royal Assent, and therefore is considered at Privy Council level in the UK. That is a mechanism by which the UK seeks to make sure that international obligations are satisfied. The processes have worked, and they have resolved issues. I am not aware of any significant outstanding issues that the process has not coped with.
However, the clause says, “We’re not sure we can trust you, and if we think it’s necessary we will, without your consent, legislate from Westminster to override your legislative jurisdiction.” The Government may say—indeed, they have said, and they are saying it again today—that this is extremely unlikely, but the possibility has already been noticed by the French media, and that could undermine the Bailiwick of Guernsey, or Jersey, in their discussions with their close neighbours.
The Minister quoted the Constitution Committee. Its report, which is critical of the clause, states:
“We are not persuaded of the necessity of Commons amendment 22.”
The Minister’s letter said that the Government
“do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using”,
the clause to address. The committee then stated in response that the Government,
“should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated.”
The Minister also quoted that. The Committee in paragraph 9 states that the Commons amendment,
“undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice.”
We are left with a clause that the Government say they have no plans to use but hold as a threat. That reverses the trend towards greater recognition of the dependencies’ autonomy and entrustment in their international relations.
My final questions are these: is there intended to be a change of constitutional policy towards the Crown dependencies such that a power to extend Westminster legislation without consent will become a feature in more UK legislation and, if so, why are the Government not more interested in a wider discussion of such a fundamental change in policy and the constitutional relationship? Or have they stumbled into an unnecessary row because someone somewhere in Defra, who has always wanted the department to have that power, got it out of the drawer and into this legislation? I have a strong suspicion the latter might be the reason.
I note the Government’s proposal for a mechanism for discussions in the context of marine management with the dependencies. Welcome though they might be, they do not make any difference to the fundamental constitutional issue. The Government surely have enough problems to tackle without picking an unnecessary quarrel with our loyal friends in the Channel Islands. I know that the Minister who is responding today, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, is not one for picking quarrels. He should see what he can do to bring this quarrel to an end.

Lord Lexden: The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Baroness, Lady Couttie, and the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick. I will call them in order.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: As a serving member of the Courts of Appeal of Guernsey and of Jersey, I do not normally speak on Channel Islands matters, at least if there is any possibility that it might disqualify me from sitting on some future appeal. This permissive extent clause, most unusually not consented to by either Guernsey or Jersey, merits a departure from that general rule.
There is no need to speculate as to why the Government insist so strongly at this time on a power to implement international fisheries agreements in the Channel Islands. The Minister has, after all, told the Constitution Committee that,
“we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”
I accept that formulation, while noting the care with which it is drafted. I shall, however, speak as someone with a little understanding of the legal systems of the Channel Islands on the constitutional consequences that are feared in the islands were this clause, said by the Minister to support the Crown dependencies, to be activated.
There was no hint in what we heard from the Minister that Orders in Council issued under the clause would be anything other than automatically binding in the Channel Islands. The point I want to get across is that under the laws of Jersey and Guernsey, it is at least doubtful that such a clause would even allow the United Kingdom Government to legislate in future for the bailiwicks without their consent. The States of Jersey Law 2005, like the Code of 1771 that preceded it, assumes that the UK Parliament may legislate for Jersey but places an important fetter on that power. Discussed by the Royal Court in the terrorist asset-freezing case of 2011, Section 31 of that law appears to signify that any Order in Council to extend the provisions of the Fisheries Bill to Jersey would need to be approved by Jersey’s legislature, the States Assembly, before it could be registered.
The States of Deliberation has a similar function in Guernsey under Article 72A of the Reform (Guernsey) Law 1948, as amended. Does the Minister accept that an Order in Council providing for the implementation of international obligations in the Channel Islands could take effect there only with the consent of the States Assembly and the States of Deliberation? If he cannot agree—I suspect that his instructions may be that he cannot—we enter into dangerous and heavily disputed waters.
The consent or otherwise of devolved Administrations within the United Kingdom is much in your Lordships’ minds at the moment, as we consider the internal market Bill. However, the constitutional issues for the Channel Islands are starker than that. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are not part of the United Kingdom, not represented in this Parliament and benefit from no equivalent to the protection for devolved Administrations in Clauses 41 and 42. Were the legislators in Guernsey or Jersey to resolve that an Order in Council under this clause should not be approved, we would find ourselves in a constitutional impasse. The confusion and ill feeling that could be engendered in the fishing communities of the Channel Islands and of Normandy, uncertain of the rules to which they were subject, would benefit no one, save the lawyers who might be expected to rely not only on the points that I have outlined but on the right to electoral representation that the Gibraltarian Ms Matthews successfully asserted in her case against the United Kingdom. That was one of my many defeats in the European Court of Human Rights.
It is genuinely puzzling that there seems to be no compelling reason to have precipitated such a potentially damaging conflict. For many years, as the Minister acknowledged, Guernsey and Jersey have found ways of scrupulously giving effect to their international obligations while preserving their constitutional autonomy. By threatening that autonomy for no specific reason  this clause sows discord where there was, constitutionally if not always politically, harmony. I regret that we are asked to accept it and that the request has come so late in the parliamentary process. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his amendment, which has allowed these important issues at least to be aired.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and, like him, I declare a Channel Island interest in that I chair the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and am a vice-chair of the Channel Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group. To say that the inclusion of the permissive extent clause in Clause 52 has upset the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey is an under- statement. They are affronted by it, and for very good reason. The clause is neither necessary nor appropriate; it respects neither the bailiwicks’ legislative autonomy nor their centuries-old constitutional relationship with the Crown. This is almost exactly the view taken by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred.
I shall quote another section of that report, which states:
“The long-standing practice of the United Kingdom when it ratifies an international agreement has been to do so on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any of the Crown Dependencies that wish the international instrument to apply to them. Where legislation has been required, it has been enacted by the Crown Dependencies’ own legislatures, subject to the usual requirements for Royal Assent, and any potential differences of view have been dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by the imposition of legislation from Westminster.”
The report goes on to state:
“We recommend that the Bill be amended so that consent of the governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (as appropriate) is required prior to the use of these powers.”
The crucial word here is “consent”.
Reading the Hansard report of the Bill’s Report stage in the House of Commons, I commend the speech of Sir Robert Neill MP, the chairman of the Justice Committee:
“There is a long-standing constitutional convention … that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense. They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.
The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; cols. 307-08.]
It is almost exactly one month since this government amendment was first considered. The Bill started in your Lordships’ House on 29 January. It received our normal thorough scrutiny, with four days in Committee in March and two on Report in June. Throughout all those stages, and indeed during the Commons consideration at Second Reading and in Committee, there was no reference to this new clause.
The Minister said that the Government would have preferred to introduce the new clause earlier with the consent of the Crown dependencies, and indeed there were discussions between Defra officials and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in July, after the Bill had left your Lordships’ House, about the inclusion of a PEC. The island Governments, however, made it clear, verbally and in writing, that they did not want a PEC included; in other words, they denied their consent to it, pointing out that the bailiwicks are responsible for ensuring that they fulfil all the international obligations to which they have agreed to be bound, including by making legislation themselves in their respective jurisdictions.
The islands meet these international obligations by implementing appropriate policies and making and enforcing relevant legislation. The Channel Islands can legislate very quickly, if needed, to comply with international obligations and to resolve any international situations, as they have in the past. Any issues that arose could be dealt with effectively by the islands themselves, and the PEC is therefore unnecessary, and, from a constitutional point of view, wholly undesirable.
At this stage, I draw the House’s attention to the views of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who is the only Guernsey-born Member of your Lordships’ House. She cannot take part in this debate but she has sent me this note:
“I was planning to focus on the issue of trust. Trust which has always existed … between the Channel Islands and what is affectionately known as ‘The Mainland’ or ‘The Other Side’. Every islander has relatives, friends, connections ‘over the other side’ and it is almost taken for granted that the interests of the two jurisdictions coincide, even while recognising and being proud of their own distinctions. It will be a source of great distress that this trust should be undermined as this legislation threatens to do and is surely not in the long term interests of either my home island or those of the government. The relationship between Guernsey and the UK government is based on mutual respect and an understanding of different perspectives and for the government to make these changes without any communication, let alone consultation, shows a gross lack of respect for the constitutional relationships which have worked well for decades. This is a constitutional issue, not one confined to fishing and would set a most unhelpful precedent for future relationships between ‘our dear Channel Islands’ and the UK.”
As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, “our dear Channel Islands” was how Winston Churchill described them in his liberation broadcast on 8 May 1945.
I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, or indeed to the Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis, as in recent days they have attempted to persuade Ministers in Guernsey and Jersey that what they are attempting to do is fair and reasonable. I should express my own appreciation that they took the trouble to talk to me last Tuesday.
I heard from Victoria Prentis’s office on Tuesday this week that Defra will
“establish a committee to discuss the Crown dependencies’ international obligations”.
We heard a similar commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, this afternoon. That would be a tiny step forward, but it does not alleviate the Channel Islands’ concerns and would not justify the inclusion of the PEC in the Bill. In his letter to the Constitution Committee on 2 November, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave his
“absolute assurance that it is still government policy that legislation should not be extended to the Crown dependencies without first consulting their Governments and seeking their consent.”
When he replies to this debate, can he clarify that absolute assurance: that, in consulting the bailiwicks, the Government would act only once they had not just sought but received their consent, and that that is not just government policy but long-standing, established constitutional principle and practice? If he accepted that, he would at least be following the recommendation of our own Constitution Committee. If he does not do that, I really cannot see any alternative other than to agree to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

Baroness Couttie: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whose speech I entirely agree with. In the interests of brevity, I will not reiterate some of the points that he has made.
I begin by reminding the House of my interest as a Guernsey financial services commissioner. I am speaking today to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
The effect of Clause 52 is to require the Channel Islands to follow the law as it pertains to regulations within international fishing agreements that the UK signs with or without the islands’ consent. The Channel Islands are independent, sovereign states that can create their own laws without interference from the UK. Although it is true that the UK represents the Channel Islands on the international stage, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that they follow the international law that the UK signs up to, the Channel Islands believe that this relates only to areas such as defence, human rights and foreign policy, and that fishing in their own domestic waters is a domestic matter and therefore does not fall under this obligation.
The PEC created in this amendment also raises some broader sovereignty issues that other speakers have touched upon and the concern that the UK could, at some time in the future, seek to further undermine their independence. They fear for where this may lead. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm in his reply that that will not be the case.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the Fisheries Minister in the other place for their time discussing this matter with me and for the progress we have made towards a level of compromise that, while not satisfying the Channel Island legislatures, mitigates to some degree what they see as an infringement on their sovereignty.
My noble friend the Minister agreed at our meeting that regulations that the Channel Islands are required to implement will be subject to consultation by the committees spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, with the Channel Islands legislatures, and that all reasonable steps will be taken to respond to and mitigate the concerns that the consultation raises. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
He also agreed that, in so far as the UK enters into international fishing agreements that contain regulations that are not relevant or appropriate to the Channel Islands, they will not apply. This situation could arise  when developing regulations associated with fishing agreements signed with countries located some distance away from the Channel Islands, such as Norway and Iceland, and this can be achieved because of the regional structure of the plans to manage the fishing industry and trade in the UK, post Brexit. Again, I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, my noble friend the Minister could confirm my understanding.
The Channel Islands and the UK have long enjoyed a constructive and positive working relationship, which I am sure we all hope will continue. It is unfortunate that the UK Government felt the need to include their amendment in the Bill and that they did not feel that the usual channels of communication, which have worked for so long, could be used instead to ensure that both the UK and the Channel Islands abide by their international obligations. It is doubly unfortunate that this issue has arisen around fisheries—an industry that, although not large on the Channel Islands, is nevertheless a vital part of the islands’ culture. I very much hope that the compromise I have outlined today is accepted.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the powerful speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Baroness Couttie.
The relationship between the UK and the Channel Islands respects the distinct laws and ancient customs of the islands. They are not represented in the UK Parliament, and by charter and advention, the UK Parliament does not legislate for the islands without their consent. It is settled practice that the UK Government consult the main Channel Islands before they may bind them to obligations in international law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has already stated, the Fisheries Bill was amended at a late stage in the other place to include a permissive extent clause, or PEC. As other noble Lords have said, the PEC seeks to enable the UK Government to extend, through an Order in Council, certain provisions of the Bill to the Crown dependencies. As the Minister stated, this is largely related to the fulfilment of international obligations in Crown dependency waters. The use of PECs in relation to the Crown dependencies is extremely rare and fundamentally based on the established principle of prior consent. In this instance, both Guernsey and Jersey have consistently made absolutely plain to the UK Government the islands’ position towards the PEC as an unnecessary, unwanted and disproportionate measure.
The PEC offers neither a precise object nor a defined timescale for its scope and application. Furthermore, it does not contain any consultation provisions prior to its potential application. However, I welcome the words of the Minister about the committee that may be established.
In its present state the PEC is open-ended and overreached by the UK Government into an area where the main islands’ legislative frameworks are considered competent. In addition, the islands have  stated that the UK’s effort to meaningfully consult—including through the fisheries management agreement—are belated and do not represent a solution to the PEC issue.
The Government still plan to go ahead with the use of the PEC unilaterally, and would use other consultative channels, such as the FMA, only as a supplementary method of engaging the Crown dependencies. I am briefed that both Guernsey and Jersey fundamentally disagree with the premise behind this and continue to oppose the PEC in the strongest terms. I am very supportive of them in this.
I will not repeat in detail the comments of other noble Lords on the report by the Constitution Committee of 9 November, except to say this. At paragraph 4, it states:
“The governments of the Channel Islands have expressed concerns about the ‘Permissive Extent Clause’ … We draw the attention of the House to the constitutional implications of this new subsection.”
At paragraph 7, it states:
“We are not persuaded of the necessity of Commons amendment 22. The Government should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated.”
Finally, paragraph 9 of the report states that:
“Commons amendment 22 undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice. We recommend that the Bill be amended so that consent of the governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (as appropriate) is required prior to the use of these powers.”
By passing this amendment, the Government are going against the unanimous view of this House’s Constitution Committee. That is a serious matter and one that I regret.
The Government state that the Isle of Man has agreed to this amendment. I would like to point out the legal system there is Manx customary law, a form of common law. The relationship between the Crown and the Channel Islands respects the distinct laws and ancient customs of the islands, which are rooted in Norman-French customary law—an important difference, on which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might be able to elaborate. As a non-lawyer, I find this a perfect valid reason for their different view.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and other speeches which have been highly critical—justifiably so—of Commons Amendment 22. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I am a member of the Constitution Committee. As noble Lords have heard, we reported on 9 November that Amendment 22 raises issues of constitutional importance. It is the long-standing practice of Parliament that it does not legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent. As your Lordships have heard, Amendment 22 has caused considerable concern in the Channel Islands, and understandably so.
It is particularly regrettable that the Government introduced the permissive extent clause at so late a stage of the passage of this Bill through Parliament. The amendment was tabled on 9 October, four days prior to Report and Third Reading stages in the House of Commons. The Bill had its First Reading in this House as long ago as 29 January. The 11th-hour tabling of the new provision has deprived this House  of any opportunity to debate this amendment prior to today. It gave the House of Commons very little opportunity to consider the amendment. On a matter of constitutional importance, that is inexcusable.
It is particularly inexcusable when the hybrid procedures of this House prevent noble Lords, with very limited exceptions, participating remotely at this stage of a Bill. It means that those noble Lords who are unable to travel here to protect their health are simply deprived of a voice. On 12 October, when the Senior Deputy Speaker introduced the report explaining the hybrid procedure for Lords consideration of Commons Amendments, the noble Lord said by way of justification for limiting remote participation at this stage:
“By the time a Bill reaches these late stages, the issues have already been well debated”.—[Official Report, 12/10/20; col. 880.]
On this important provision, they have not been. That is another reason it is simply inexcusable for the Government to introduce a matter of constitutional importance so late in the Bill. I suggest that the Procedure Committee reconsider the hybrid procedure on ping-pong—the procedure that prevents remote participation apart from for a person moving a Motion—when, as in this case, a provision has not been previously considered by the House.
That would all be bad enough, but the introduction of a provision of constitutional importance so late in the passage of the Bill is especially objectionable when the Government do not even suggest that there is any urgent need to act on the powers they now wish the House to confer on them. On the contrary, the Minister was clear this afternoon, and in correspondence, that it was “highly unlikely” that these powers would ever be exercised.
The Minister was equally candid in his letter to the esteemed chair of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. He said—it has already been quoted but it is so extraordinary that it bears repetition:
“To be clear, we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”
Moreover, in that same letter, the Minister assured the committee he accepted that
“the Crown Dependencies take their international obligations extremely seriously; and I am confident that they would meet any required commitments, legislating domestically if required, in any normal circumstances.”
The position is clear. Even the Government do not suggest that there is any current or anticipated need for this extraordinary provision. They would simply like to have the powers in case something unexpected were to turn up.
When the provision was debated in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Neill, chairman of the Justice Committee, accurately described it as a
“‘break glass in emergency’ clause”,
and simply not good enough to justify what he described as
“trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; col. 308.]
I agree, except that I would say “trampling all over”, rather than “trespassing on”. We should not break constitutional conventions because there is a remote possibility of a need to exercise powers in the future.  Far less should we be doing so by way of a provision introduced so late in the passage of a Bill that it has not received the detailed consideration which it deserves.
Commons Amendment 22 is indefensible, except on the basis that any legislation for Jersey and Guernsey without the consent of the Channel Islands would have no legal effect there, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I look forward to being briefed to argue the point before Mr Justice Anderson in the courts of appeal in Jersey and Guernsey, but for the obvious conflicts of interests that we would both have.

Lord Lexden: Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In which case, I turn to those listed for the debate and call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Motion 22A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Beith, which would leave out Clause 52, deals with the PEC, or permissive extent clause, which affects the Crown dependencies in unusual circumstances and protects the UK against any part of it breaking international law, which would affect the whole of the UK. Other noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about this. My noble friend Lord Beith has set out extremely well the case for deleting Clause 52, and we have also heard from other noble Lords on this subject. It would seem extremely high-handed of the Government to introduce the PEC against the wishes of the Crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has spoken from his personal knowledge of the law of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and other Peers have also spoken knowledgeably to Motion 22A. The Bailiwick of Jersey has written to Peers stating that the use of the PEC in relation to the Crown dependencies is extremely rare and fundamentally based on the established principle of prior consent. In this instance, both Jersey and Guernsey have consistently made it plain to the UK Government the islands’ position that the PEC is an unnecessary, unwanted and disproportionate measure.
The Bailiwick of Jersey does not consider that the UK Government have yet put forward a credible argument as to why the PEC is necessary in Jersey’s case, and I very much agree. Jersey already possesses the ability, under the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994, to give effect to any legal obligations related to fisheries management within its waters. The UK Government have not been able to provide any previous precedent or reasonable scenarios in which Jersey’s current regime could be considered insufficient.
In their letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on 2 November, the Government state that they have been trying to reach an agreement over the last 10 months. Not to have reached an agreement over this period is no excuse to impose the PEC on reluctant Crown dependencies.
The Channel Islands All-Party Group has also written expressing considerable concerns about this matter. My noble friend Lord Chidgey, who cannot be  present this afternoon to make his own contribution, is similarly concerned about the legal implications of the UK imposing the PEC on Guernsey and Jersey.
I welcome the joint committee that the Minister, Victoria Prentis, is setting up with the Crown dependencies, to try to reach an agreement on the use of PEC. However, given the weight of the arguments expressed this afternoon, I ask the Minister to withdraw government Amendment 52 and continue negotiations with the Crown dependencies to reach an accommodation that is not in the form of a sledgehammer, as this Clause currently is. I look forward to his response on this critical issue, which has generated such a degree of opposition.
I pay tribute, as others have, to the Minister’s patience and good humour, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist. They and their officials have provided very detailed briefings, which have been invaluable. I also pay tribute to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for sharing his considerable expertise and knowledge, without which I would have struggled.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this new clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for raising his concerns, with which we have considerable sympathy. As ever, it is unfortunate that this issue has come before us at such a late stage. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised some very important procedural issues around the consequences which arise from that, and the lack of scrutiny that we can therefore give to the proposals.
We have all read the exchange of correspondence with the Constitution Committee, and the Minister will know that its latest report says that it is
“not persuaded of the necessity”
of the government amendment on the permissive extent clause, and that what is being proposed is “contrary to long-standing practice”, in which differences of view are
“dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by … imposition … from Westminster.”
Clearly, the Constitution Committee speaks with great authority. We should take its advice seriously. It is a great shame that events have come to this, particularly since the circumstances in which the permissive extent clause would be used seem so obscure and unlikely. It feels as though the lawyers in Defra have got carried away anticipating events that are never going to happen, a point made by a number of noble Lords.
When we spoke to the Secretary of State and the Minister, Victoria Prentis, earlier this week, we were told that further discussions with the Channel Islands would take place this week, and that it was hoped that the outstanding issues would be resolved. We were optimistic. However, having spoken to Guernsey’s Minister of External Relations yesterday, and heard the voices from around the Chamber today, I gather that, despite further discussions, concerns remain. The Minister also told me that this was damaging relations with their French neighbours and playing badly in the French media, a point confirmed in the contribution  of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I agree with the quote from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, that this is an issue about trust, and that it is a great shame that the strong relationship and trust that have existed in the past are now being undermined.
I am sorry that we are debating this issue and that it remains unresolved. There must be further bilateral discussions to resolve the matter. At a minimum, I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on this issue, not only in a committee, but on a more urgent basis. These matters surely must be resolved now, well in advance of any conflict, rather than potentially in the middle of any crisis which might provoke the use of a PEC.
Secondly, I hope the Minister can be explicit about the very narrow circumstances in which he envisages these powers being used, because that is a mystery to many of us. I think all noble Lords would like to understand the type of event that would provoke the imposition of a PEC.
Lastly, I hope the Minister can acknowledge the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others. The legal position is that, where an international instrument is to be applied to a Crown dependency, it will need to be enacted by the dependency’s own legislature rather than being imposed on it. If that is the case, then it needs the legislature’s consent in the first place, which rather negates the existence of a PEC.
I hope the Minister is hearing the voices from around the Chamber on all this. It is a great pity that we are ending our consideration of the Bill on such a note of discord. I hope he can come forward with a way through. As this is my last appearance on the Bill, I add my considerable thanks to the Minister and the noble Baroness for their considerable patience and courtesy throughout this process; they went much further than many in making sure that we were properly briefed and had access to the best possible advice. On that note, which I am sorry we have ended on, I hope the Minister is able to come back with something constructive. I look forward to his response.

Lord Lexden: I call on the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, to reply to this important debate.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, this is an extremely important debate. I am grateful for this challenge; it is rather like playing tennis with someone much better than oneself, and one hopes that that raises one’s game. When lawyers are about, I get a shade nervous. I am also nervous as I am second to none in my regard and indeed affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I am reminded here of the reference to Winston Churchill and the reference to two of the Crown dependencies and their history with the Crown.
Not only for me personally but for the Government, the essential nature of working with the three Crown dependencies is the warmth and positivity of that relationship as we are all part of the British family. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that I am grateful to him for his opening remarks, because we stand by the framework agreements, recognising the Channel  Islands’ international identities. That is different from the UK ensuring that we can meet our international obligations. This is an area where I, not being the Fisheries Minister but having to attend to this matter, have tried to get my head around how this clause comes into our international obligations and why I am going to endeavour to persuade your Lordships that this is solely about how it relates to the UK’s international obligations. Indeed, that is why it is in Clause 36; it is defined because it is about all of us adhering to obligations that, as I said in my opening remarks, play out for everyone in the British family. There is therefore that last resort, that safety valve, of having provisions that enable adherence to international obligations that would have adverse impacts.
To the remarks of my noble friend Lady Couttie, I say that our preference, indeed our expectation, is that the Crown dependencies will implement the necessary legislation to meet international requirements that apply to them. As I have said, the clause provides protection for the British family on the international stage, but obviously we hope we will not have to use it.
I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. My view is that, when I take out an insurance policy, I am dearly hoping that my house does not burn down but I have a backstop. I have given very lay consideration to the issue of responsibility in this new adventure as an independent marine state, given the international obligations that we as the British Government will have. I think it is rather important, when I am seeking to persuade, to say that I personally see merit in this, but we do not in any sense want to have difficulties with the Crown dependencies.
I hope noble Lords will appreciate the requirement for the UK Government to be able to ensure that they meet international obligations for the protection of all parts of the UK—and indeed the Crown dependencies, which is the crux of the matter. That is a responsible international-facing Government ensuring that we can continue to meet our international obligations on sustainable fishing. We will of course continue to work very closely with the Crown dependencies at all levels but of course particularly at official and ministerial level.
I say to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Couttie and Lord Northbrook, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that, having worked with my honourable friend Victoria Prentis, the Fisheries Minister, I am sure she is determined to ensure that, in the setting up of a committee with the Crown dependencies—as I have said, within the possible structure of the fisheries management agreements—to consider and assess how the implementation of the international obligations is going to be worked through. That is what we will want to do.
I agree with the sentiments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has expressed about the importance of dialogue and continuing discussion. There is continuing work to be done on this matter with this Bill and with the responsibilities that the Government now have as an independent maritime state. I want to put on the record and re-emphasise that, through the committee or through other work, it is vital that the communications and collaborative  working with the Crown dependencies are designed to ensure that we may not ever need to use this last-resort measure. That is the whole purpose of dialogue and good friendship in protecting, as I have said, the British family. I say publicly that I understand the sentiments that the noble Baroness has expressed.
I shall repeat this so it is on the record: the committee could deal with issues that may lead to the activation of the permissive extent clause. It is not intended that this clause and the regulation-making power that it relates to would be used to legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent, unless it were to become necessary to implement an international obligation that applied to them. I emphasise again that that would only ever be as a last resort, after full consultation and the exhaustion of all other options.
I shall answer some of the questions that were asked. I looked at the Ministry of Justice guidance on this matter. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Pannick, that the MoJ advises that although consultation and consent should be sought in all circumstances, PECs can be included in Bills without the prior agreement of the Crown dependencies in exceptional circumstances and where a Bill engages the UK’s constitutional responsibilities for defence and international relations. This position is reflected in the Fact Sheet on the UK’s Relationship with the Crown Dependencies that was published by the MoJ in February this year. I will look at what both noble Lords, with their legal advantage over me, have said. I have referred to the MoJ guidance and that is the best that I can do on the matter, but it is available for further consideration.
I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—and to all noble Lords—that working with Crown dependency officials and Ministers will clearly be very essential. We raised the idea of this clause before the Bill was introduced in January, then discussions took place at official level aiming to narrow the scope of the clause to what is required to protect the British family and other Crown dependencies. We consulted on them formally later this year. As I say, this is why the discussions for this Bill are specifically about Clause 36 and our international obligations. I should also say to the noble Lord that this clause does not legislate for the Crown dependencies before activating the PEC. We would consult and seek to achieve the same results through other options—for instance, of course, Crown dependency domestic legislation.
On seeking consent before extending legislation, we would always—I put this on record—seek to resolve any issues through collaborative means. There are many examples of this in the history of our great relationship. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Couttie is right that it would not be appropriate for the UK to include a PEC in respect of domestic legislation. This is about international relations. My noble friend also referred to non-relevant international agreements not applying. As a matter of policy and convention, we do not extend treaties or agreements to the Crown dependencies unless they ask us to. So, if an agreement does not benefit the Crown dependencies, it is unlikely that they would ask us to extend it to them.
I certainly heard what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said. I have always taken note of the Constitution Committee. I understand all the points that have been made. I have at least sought to put on the record that this is a last resort relating solely to international obligations for which the UK Government are responsible. This is the key point about these matters and why it is important that, to protect the interests of the British family in terms of the international obligations to which we all have to adhere, the UK Government have this last-resort opportunity.
Obviously, as I said in my opening remarks and closing speech, I am looking to a situation where our relationship with the Crown dependencies is extremely strong—as I believe it is—and we never have to relate to the use of this clause. I personally do not think that it is a legitimate answer or desire if we therefore do not have an opportunity of last resort. Let me use an example, to take us back to fish. If there is illegal, unregulated fishing in a certain jurisdiction and sustainable fishing is not being undertaken, it falls on the UK Government to undertake this under our arrangements. We need an opportunity for the UK Government to have the scope and the possibility of ensuring that, across the British family, these obligations are adhered to on behalf of us all.
I always stand to attention when certain noble Lords feel strongly about something but, although I understand the points that have been made—particularly those made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—this is an area where the UK Government, Defra and, certainly, the Fisheries Minister, want to take forward the committee and other discussions. That is how we will restore the harmony that I think we instinctively want between all the Crown dependencies and the UK Government as part of the British family.
I am very mindful and, because I am chastened, I will obviously take back to my ministerial colleagues all the points that have been made. However, I respectfully beg to move because I think that the UK Government must have a mechanism of last resort.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the considerate and thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I would just like clarification on that very last point. He has drawn attention, quite rightly, to the constitutional history between the United Kingdom Government and the Channel Islands. Does he not accept that the way in which harmony can be restored is by just saying “yes” to this question: if the Channel Islands do not consent to the use of the PEC, will the Government not insist on it?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I understand the instincts of the noble Lord exactly. On international obligations, the whole point about the last resort is that, if international obligations were not being adhered to in a certain part of the British family, it would be the responsibility of the UK Government to act accordingly. All I say in answering the noble Lord—  positively, I hope—is that I believe that everyone I have spoken to who would have responsibility would work collaboratively and exhaust every option available. It would be triggered only if all those options were exhausted in order to adhere to international obligations. This is my point.
Also—if I am allowed to say this and if this is the last moment—I respect immensely all noble Lords who have participated in the consideration of this Fisheries Bill. This is indeed my first experience of us dealing with a Bill as the first House; I can tell your Lordships that, when I saw the number of amendments coming back from the other place, I was not the only one whose heart may have sunk a bit. I think it shows that, when we are the second House and have other points to make, the other place sends us messages back as well. I place on record my deep appreciation of the Front Bench opposite and the Back Benches on all sides of the House for the collaborative way in which I believe we have worked, seeking to do the best we can for the marine environment and the future of our fisheries communities—which, after all, bring us such nutritious food, often in very difficult circumstances. I place my thanks on record and have no doubt that we will have further work to do.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken over this but I am afraid that he was not as persuasive as he sometimes is—certainly for me. I want to pick up on a couple of his points before thanking the noble Lords who took part in this debate.
On international obligations, the dependencies understand and carry out their international obligations. They have the legislative and policing capacity to do so, and the UK Government would not face any problem in persuading them to take the necessary and appropriate action where it was clear that it was needed. There are many areas in which international obligations exist and the Government do not appear, as far as I can see, to be running around creating powers like this in areas in which conditions could arise where there are international obligations to be satisfied. The existing system works and does not need to be changed.
Secondly, on the legal situation in both Guernsey and Jersey, which was so helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the note that was passed to the Minister was not really about that—I do not blame him for that—but about the legal situation on including a permitted extension clause in the Bill in the first place. It does not really address what would happen under Guernsey or Jersey law if the Government attempted to use the power. The amount of uncertainty that exists in that area is something that the Government will have to take into account.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the points he raised illustrated the high level of knowledge and experience that Peers brought to the debate. I mention the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Faulkner, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Couttie and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who suggested that the Minister should withdraw the clause, which could be achieved by accepting my amendment, in order to discuss the matter further with Guernsey and Jersey.
The Minister has not accepted good advice but, at such a late stage, in the face of Commons acceptance of the clause, our options are limited, and I do not think a vote would be helpful. I can only hope that the very severe response from experienced and knowledgeable Members of this House has made clear to Ministers that on no account should they make use of these powers without having obtained the consent of the Crown dependencies to do so. They would face a very serious reaction if they were to attempt such a course without consent. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion 22A withdrawn.
Motion on Amendment 22 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 23 to 101

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 23 to 101.
23: Clause 53, page 37, line 11, at end insert—“(da) section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities) (agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities);”
24: Clause 53, page 37, line 14, leave out “Section 45 (legislative competence of Senedd Cymru)” and insert “Sections 45 and (Interpretation of Welsh legislation) (legislative competence of Senedd Cymru etc)”
25: Clause 53, page 37, line 19, leave out “and Schedules 3 and 4” and insert “, Schedule 3 and (subject to subsection (5A)) Schedule 4”
26: Clause 53, page 37, line 21, at end insert—“(da) section (Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated) (foreign fishing boats exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated);”
27: Clause 53, page 37, line 30, at end insert—“(4A) Section (conservation of seals) and Schedule (conservation of seals) (conservation of seals) come into force on 1 March 2021.”(4B) In Schedule 4, the amendment made by paragraph 6(13)(d) is treated as always having had effect.”
28: Clause 54, page 37, line 38, leave out subsection (2)
29: Schedule 2, page 42, line 38, leave out from “crabs)” to end of line 1 on page 43 and insert “, in paragraph (2), after “foreign fishing boats” insert “of sea fish caught in waters lying outside British fishery limits”.”
30: Schedule 2, page 43, line 2, leave out from “crabs)” to end of line 4 and insert “, in paragraph (2), after “foreign fishing boats” insert “and were caught in waters lying outside British fishery limits”.”
31: Schedule 2, page 43, line 13, leave out “Scottish or”
32: Schedule 2, page 43, line 13, leave out “or a foreign vessel”
33: Schedule 2, page 43, line 16, at end insert—“(4) A foreign vessel is prohibited from carrying in the English zone velvet crab that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits and are below the minimum size mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).”
34: Schedule 2, page 43, line 23, leave out “Scottish or”
35: Schedule 2, page 44, line 19, leave out from “prohibition)” to end of line 20 and insert—“(a) in paragraph (1) omit “wherever caught”;(b) in paragraph (2), after “applies” insert “(wherever caught)”;  (c) after paragraph (2) insert—“(3) The landing in England or Northern Ireland from a foreign fishing boat of any sea fish to which this article applies that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits is prohibited.””
36: Schedule 2, page 45, line 16, leave out “in relation to”
37: Schedule 2, page 45, line 19, leave out “in relation to”
38: Schedule 2, page 46, line 11, at end insert “, or(d) a foreign fishing boat outside British fishery limits.”
39: Schedule 2, page 51, line 32, at end insert—“SCOTLANDThe Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 199922 (1) The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1991 (S.S.I. 1999/88) is amended as follows.(2) In article 3 (fishing prohibition)—(a) in paragraph (2), for “a relevant British” substitute “any”;(b) in paragraph (3), for “within the Scottish zone or anywhere outside that zone” substitute “outside the Scottish zone”.(3) In article 4 (landing prohibition), for paragraph (3) substitute—“(3) The prohibition in paragraph (2) does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(4) In article 5 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 200023 (1) The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 2000 (S.S.I. 2000/227) is amended as follows.(2) In article 3 (application), in paragraphs (1)(b) and (1B)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 200324 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 2003 (S.S.I. 2003/371) is amended as follows.(2) In articles 3 and 4 (prohibitions of fishing for king scallops) for “a Scottish fishing boat or by any relevant British” substitute “any”.(3) In article 6 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 200425 (1) The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 2004 (S.S.I. 2004/261) is amended as follows.(2) In article 3 (prohibition on fishing for shrimps without a separator trawl or sorting grid), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.(3) In article 4 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 201226 (1) The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/63) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (definitions) omit the following definitions—“fishing boat”;“relevant British fishing boat”;“Scottish fishing boat”;“third country”;“third country fishing boat”.(3) Omit article 3 (application).(4) In article 4 (prohibition of fishing for tope), for “a boat to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.  (5) In article 5 (prohibition of trans-shipment of tope), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.(6) In article 6 (prohibition of landing tope)— (a) the existing provision becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph, for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to tope caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(7) In article 7 (prohibition of landing specified species of shark, skate and ray)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;(b) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a specified species caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(c) in paragraph (2), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “this article”.(8) In article 8 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)—(a) in sub-paragraph (b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”; (b) omit sub-paragraph (c) and the “and” before it.The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 201727 (1) The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/127) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing king scallops)—(a) for paragraph (3) substitute—“(3) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”;(b) in paragraph (5), omit sub-paragraph (a).(4) In article 4 (restrictions on number of scallop dredges), in the opening words, omit “British”.(5) In article 5 (exemption from restrictions in article 4), in paragraphs (1),(2), (3)(a) and (4)(a), omit “British”.(6) In article 6 (requirement to install a functioning remote electronic monitoring system), in paragraphs (1) and (3), omit “British”.The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 201728 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/325) is amended as follows.(2) In article 3 (prohibition of method of fishing), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 201729 (1) The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/455) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “foreign fishing boat”.(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing edible crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”  (4) In article 4 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of velvet crabs)—(a) in paragraph (4), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;(b) for paragraphs (6) and (7) substitute—“(6) The prohibitions imposed by—(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph(1), and(b) paragraphs (4) and (5), do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.(7) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (2), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(5) In article 5 (prescribed minimum size for landing spider crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(6) In article 6 (prescribed minimum size for landing green crabs in the Orkney Islands), for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”(7) In article 7 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of lobsters)—(a) in paragraph (10), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;(b) for paragraphs (12) and (13) substitute—“(12) The prohibitions imposed by—(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraphs(1) to (7), and(b) paragraph (10), do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.(13) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (8), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 201930 (1) The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/419) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (interpretation), in paragraph (1), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.(3) In article 3 (prohibited methods of fishing), in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), omit “British”.NORTHERN IRELANDThe Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 199331 (1) The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.) 1993 No. 155) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit “to any person who is not a British citizen or”.The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 32 (1) The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (Northern Ireland) 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998 No. 414) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit paragraph (a).The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000  33 (1) The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 (S.R. (N.I.) 2000 No. 200) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (interpretation)—(a) omit the definition of “British fishing boat”;(b) for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.(3) For article 4 substitute—“Exemptions4 The prohibitions imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, do not apply in relation to seafish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 200834 (1) The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. (N.I.) 2008 No. 430) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.(3) In regulation 3 (prohibition of fishing and fishing methods) in paragraphs (3), (4), (7)(b) and (8), omit “British”.(4) In regulation 4 (exemptions), omit paragraph (a).The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 202035 (1) The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 152) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.(3) For regulation 5 (exemptions) substitute—“Exemptions5 (1) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply to any person operating under the authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.(2) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 202036 (1) The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 153) is amended as follows.(2) In article 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.(3) For article 4 (exemptions) substitute—“Exemptions4 (1) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply to any person operating under the authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.(2) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.””
40: Schedule 3, page 54, line 6, at end insert—“(4) This paragraph does not confer power on a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements for a licensing function to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority (see instead section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities) (agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities)).”
41: Schedule 3, page 55, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
42: Schedule 4, page 57, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
43: Schedule 4, page 60, line 30, at end insert—  “(d) in subsection (11)(b), after “approval”, in the second place it occurs, insert “or annulment”.”
44: Schedule 4, page 63, line 14, at end insert—““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that— (a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks;”
45: Schedule 4, page 63, line 23, after “words” insert—“(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;(ii) ”
46: Schedule 4, page 63, line 40, leave out “this regulation” and insert “paragraphs (1) and (2)”.
47: Schedule 4, page 63, line 44, leave out from “charterer;” to end of line 47 and insert—“(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.(2B) A temporary foreign vessel licence shall be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Welsh Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.(2C) In paragraph (2B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
48: Schedule 4, page 64, line 10, after “licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”
49: Schedule 4, page 64, line 21, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—“(a) in the heading, for “Delivery” substitute “Granting”;(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;(c) in paragraph (3)—(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;(ii) for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”;(iii) for “delivered” substitute “granted”;(d) after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic means at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.(3B) A notice communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.(3C) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2B) shall be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;(e) in paragraph (5) (in each place it occurs), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
50: Schedule 4, page 64, line 27, leave out from “paragraph (a)” to end of line 28 and insert— “(i) after “2(1)” insert “or (2B)”;(ii) omit “, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),”;(iii) for “delivered or given” substitute “granted”;”
51: Schedule 4, page 65, line 9, after “zone” insert “only”
52: Schedule 4, page 65, line 38, at end insert—“(e) after that definition insert—““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and  (b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
53: Schedule 4, page 65, line 40, after “words” insert—“(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;(ii) ”
54: Schedule 4, page 65, line 43, at end insert—“(ba) after that paragraph insert —“(1A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Scottish Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.(1B) In paragraph (1A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
55: Schedule 4, page 66, line 3, leave out from “notices)” to end of line 4 and insert—“(a) in the heading, for “Delivery” substitute “Granting”;(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;(c) in paragraph (3)—(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;(ii) for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”;(iii) for “delivered” substitute “granted”;(d) after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.(3B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 3(1A) is to be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;(e) in paragraph (5) (in both places), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
56: Schedule 4, page 66, line 4, at end insert—“(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices to have effect), in paragraph (a)—(a) after “3(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(b) for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
57: Schedule 4, page 66, line 30, at end insert—“(ba) for the definition of “notice” substitute—““notice” means a notice of variation, suspension or revocation of a licence;”;
58: Schedule 4, page 66, line 44, at end insert—““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that— (a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
59: Schedule 4, page 66, line 46, leave out paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) on page 67 and insert—“(a) in paragraph (1)—(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;(ii) for the words from “the owner” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient (“P”)”;(b) after that paragraph insert—“(1A) In paragraph (1) “an appropriate recipient” means—(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant fishing boat—  (i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or(ii) a nominee of the owner or charterer;(b) in relation to a licence or a notice, relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.”;(c) in paragraph (2), after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence, ”;(d) after paragraph (3) insert —“(3A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Marine Management Organisation or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.(3B) In paragraph (3A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”; (e) omit paragraph (8).”
60: Schedule 4, page 67, line 10, at end insert—“(5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences are delivered and notice given)—(a) in the heading and paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;(b) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated as described in regulation 3(3A) is treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;(c) in paragraph (7) (in both places), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices have effect), in paragraph (a), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
61: Schedule 4, page 68, line 4, at end insert—“(f) after that definition insert—““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
62: Schedule 4, page 68, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—“(a) in paragraph (1)—after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;omit “Northern Ireland”;for the words from “the owner or charterer of the boat” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient”;(b) in paragraph (2), after “A licence” insert “(other than a temporary foreign vessel licence)”;(c) in paragraph (3), for the words from “the owner or charterer of the boat” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient”;(d) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In paragraphs (1) to (4), “an appropriate recipient” means—(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat—(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer;  (b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by delivering it to the relevant person by—transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, andsubsequently publishing it on the website of the Department or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.(4C) In paragraph (4B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.””
63: Schedule 4, page 68, line 20, at end insert—“(5) In regulation 4 (time when licences are delivered and notices given), after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence delivered as described in regulation 3(4B) is treated as delivered immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”(6) In regulation 5 (time when licences, variations, suspensions or revocations have effect), in paragraph (a), after “3(2)” insert “or (4B)”.”
64: Schedule 4, page 68, line 22, at end insert—“Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 201922 The Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/507 (W. 117)) (which has not come into force) is revoked.Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 201923 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/500 (W. 116)) (which have not come into force) are revoked.Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 201924 The Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/ 523) (which have not come into force) are revoked.Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 201925 The Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/87) (which has not come into force) is revoked.Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 201926 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/88) (which have not come into force) are revoked.Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 201927 The Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I.2019/345) (which has not come into force) is revoked.”
65: Schedule 4, page 69, line 21, at beginning insert—“(1) Regulations made under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A of that Act) in relation to licences under section 4 of that Act have effect on and after the coming into force of paragraph 6(2) as if they were made under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
66: Schedule 6, page 72, line 19, at end insert—“(c) require the Scottish Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.  (4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;(b) the amount of the financial assistance;(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
67: Schedule 6, page 73, line 19, at end insert—“(c) require the Welsh Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;(b) the amount of the financial assistance;(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
68: Schedule 6, page 74, line 19, at end insert—“(c) require the Northern Ireland department, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;(b) the amount of the financial assistance;(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
69: Schedule 8, page 80, leave out lines 19 to 23
70: Schedule 8, page 81, line 43, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 44 and insert “, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”
71: Schedule 8, page 84, leave out lines 3 to 7
72: Schedule 8, page 85, line 26, after “of” insert “sea fishing by”
73: Schedule 8, page 85, line 26, at end insert—“(3A) Provision which does not fall within sub-paragraph (3)(a), but which would do so but for a requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006, may be included in regulations under paragraph 6 or 8 with the consent of the Secretary of State.”
74: Schedule 8, page 85, line 28, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 29 and insert “, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”
75: Schedule 8, page 87, leave out lines 39 to 43
76: Schedule 8, page 89, line 16, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 17 and insert “, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”
77: After Schedule 8, insert the following new Schedule—“CONSERVATION OF SEALSPART 1AMENDMENT OF THE CONSERVATION OF SEALS ACT 19701 The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 12.  2 For section 1 (prohibited methods of killing seals) substitute—“1 Prohibition of the killing, injuring or taking of sealsA person commits an offence if the person intentionally or recklessly kills, injures or takes a seal.” 3 Omit section 2 (close seasons for seals).4 Omit section 3 (orders prohibiting killing seals).5 In section 4 (apprehension of offenders and powers of search and seizure), in subsection (1), in paragraph (c) for “seal, seal skin, firearm, ammunition or poisonous” substitute “seal, item or”.6 In section 6 (forfeitures), for the words from “any seal or seal” to the end substitute—“(a) any seal or seal skin in respect of which the offence was committed;(b) any item (but not a vehicle or boat) or substance used in connection with the commission of the offence;(c) any seal, seal skin, poisonous or explosive substance, explosive article, firearm or ammunition, in the person’s possession at the time of the offence.”7 In section 8 (attempt to commit offence), in subsection (2)—(a) after “poisonous” insert “or explosive”;(b) after “substance” insert “, any explosive article”;(c) omit “the use of which is prohibited by section 1(1)(b) of this Act”.8 In section 9 (general exceptions)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “2 or 3” substitute “1”;(ii) in paragraph (a), omit “otherwise than by his act”;(iii) omit paragraphs (b) and (c);(b) in subsection (2)— (i) omit “, 2 or 3”;(ii) omit “otherwise than by his act”.9 In section 10 (power to grant licences)—(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (c)—(i) omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) (but not the “or” after paragraph (iii));(ii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iia) the protection of animal or human health or public safety,”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be read as authorising the grant of a licence for the purpose of the protection, promotion or development of commercial fish or aquaculture activities within the meaning of the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act).”10 In section 11 (entry upon land)—(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (b);(b) in subsection (2), omit paragraph (d);(c) in subsection (4)—(i) omit the words from “, or in the” to “28 days’ notice,”;(ii) omit the words from “; and in the case” to the end; (d) omit subsection (5).11 Omit section 14 (orders).12 In section 15 (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert—““explosive article” means an article (for example, a bomb or a firework) containing one or more explosive substances;”;““explosive substance” means a substance or preparation, not including a substance or preparation in a solely gaseous form or in the form of vapour, which is —(a) capable by chemical reaction in itself of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as could cause damage to surroundings; or(b) designed to produce an effect by heat, light, sound, gas or smoke, or a combination of these as a result of a non-detonative, self-sustaining, exothermic chemical reaction;”;  ““preparation” means a mixture of two or more substances or a solution of any substance or substances;”.PART 2AMENDMENT OF THE WILDLIFE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 198513 The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 14 to 19.14 In Article 10 (protection of certain wild animals), in paragraph (4A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— “(a) a seal (pinniped), or”.15 In Article 11 (exceptions to Article 10)—(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Article 5(5) (as it applies to Article 10 by virtue of paragraph (1)) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if—(a) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “otherwise than by his unlawful act” were omitted, and(b) sub-paragraph (c) were omitted.”;(b) after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if“or to fisheries” were omitted.”16 In Article 18 (power to grant licences), after paragraph (3) insert—“(3ZA) But a licence may not be granted under paragraph (3) that permits the killing, injuring or taking of seals (pinnipedia) for the purpose of preventing damage to fisheries.”17 In Schedule 5 (animals which are protected at all times), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—“SealPinniped”18 In Schedule 6 (animals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—“SealPinniped”19 In Schedule 7 (animals which may not be sold alive or dead at any time), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—“SealPinniped””
78: Schedule 9, page 93, line 12, leave out “2010 (S.I. 2010/940)” and insert “2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)”
79: Schedule 9, page 96, line 37, leave out “2010 (S.I. 2010/940)” and insert “2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)”
80: Schedule 9, page 100, line 13, at end insert—“(10A) An order under this section that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the level of fees) is subject to the affirmative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010) (asp 10)).”
81: Schedule 9, page 100, line 14, leave out “An” and insert “Any other”
82: Schedule 9, page 100, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert “that Part of that Act).”
83: Schedule 9, page 100, line 46, at end insert—“(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Scottish Ministers do not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 12 months.”
84: Schedule 9, page 102, line 5, at end insert—“(4) An order to which this section applies may be amended or revoked by a further order.”
85: Schedule 9, page 102, line 5, at end insert—“Orders for marine conservation: Northern Ireland offshore region137E Orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Northern Ireland offshore region(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purposes of conserving— (a) marine flora or fauna,(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat, or (c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.(2) An order under this section may be made so as to apply to any area in the Northern Ireland offshore region.(3) An order under this section must specify the flora or fauna, habitat or type of habitat or features for the conservation of which it is made.(4) The provision that may be made by an order under this section includes, in particular, provision falling within any of the Heads set out in subsections (5) to (7).(5) Head 1 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, including—(a) provision prohibiting or restricting such exploitation in specified areas or during specified periods;(b) provision limiting the amount of sea fisheries resources a person or vessel may take in a specified period;(c) provision limiting the amount of time a person or vessel may spend fishing for or taking sea fisheries resources in a specified period.(6) Head 2 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources without a permit issued by the Department, including—(a) provision for the charging of fees for permits;(b) provision enabling conditions to be attached to a permit;(c) provision enabling the Department to limit the number of permits issued by it.(7) Head 3 is—(a) provision prohibiting or restricting the use of vessels of specified descriptions;(b) provision prohibiting or restricting any method of exploiting sea fisheries resources;(c) provision prohibiting or restricting the possession, use, retention on board, storage or transportation of specified items, or items of a specified description, that are used in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources;(d) provision for determining whether such items are items of a specified description.(8) An order under this section may be made—(a) subject to specified exceptions or conditions;(b) so as to cease to have effect after a specified period.(9) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases, including in particular— (a) different times of the year,(b) different means or methods of carrying out an activity, and (c) different descriptions of sea fisheries resources.(10) In this section “specified” means specified in the order.(11) In this section, and in sections 137F to 137H, “the Department” means the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.137F Consultation etc regarding orders under section 137E(1) Before making an order under section 137E the Department must—(a) consult the Secretary of State,  (b) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the English offshore region, consult the MMO,(c) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Scottish offshore region, consult the Scottish Ministers,(d) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh offshore region, consult the Welsh Ministers, and(e) consult any other person whom they think fit to consult.(2) The Department must publish notice of the making of an order under section 137E.(3) The notice under subsection (2) must—(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected.(4) Where the Department think that there is an urgent need to make an order under section 137E to protect the Northern Ireland offshore region— (a) subsection (1) does not apply,(b) the notice under subsection (2) must also state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Department does not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.(6) The Department may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 6 months.”137G Interim orders made by the Department(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purpose of protecting any feature in any area in that region if the Department thinks—(a) that the appropriate authority should consider whether to designate the area as an MCZ, and(b) that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.(2) An interim order under this section must contain a description of the boundaries of the area to which it applies (which must be no greater than is necessary for the purpose of protecting the feature in question).(3) Subsections (4) to (10) of section 137E apply to an interim order under this section.(4) An interim order under this section—(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.(5) The Department may by further order extend the period for which the interim order is in force for a period not exceeding  6 months.(6) The Department must publish notice of the making of an interim order under this section.(7) The notice under subsection (6) must—(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected;(c) state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.   (8) The Department must keep under review the need for an interim order under this section to remain in force.(9) In this section “feature” means any flora, fauna, habitat or feature which could be a protected feature if the area in question were designated as an MCZ.137H Further provision as to orders made under section 137E or 137G(1) This section applies to any order made under section 137E or 137G.(2) The Department must send a copy of any order to which this section applies to the Secretary of State and to any person consulted under section 137F(2).(3) The Department must—(a) make a copy of any order to which this section applies available for inspection at such place as the Department thinks fit for that purpose at all reasonable hours without payment;(b) provide a copy of any such order to any person who requests one.””
86: Schedule 9, page 102, line 6, at end insert—“(1A) In the heading, omit “by Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers”.”
87: Schedule 9, page 102, line 15, at end insert—“(2B) This section also applies where the Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has the function of —(a) deciding whether to make an order under section 137E;(b) deciding whether to make an order under section 137G.”
88: Schedule 9, page 102, line 16, leave out “or Scottish Ministers” and insert “, the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland”
89: Schedule 9, page 102, line 22, after “134A,” insert “134B,”
90: Schedule 9, page 102, line 23, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
91: Schedule 9, page 102, line 41, leave out “or 137A(6)” and insert “, 137A(6) or 137E(6)”
92: Schedule 9, page 103, line 14, at end insert—“27A In section 189 (power of Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales)— (a) in subsection (1), for “Subject to subsection (2), the” substitute “The”;(b) omit subsection (2).”
93: Schedule 9, page 103, line 27, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
94: Schedule 9, page 104, line 10, at end insert—“(15) Where the fisheries exploitation legislation consists of an order made under section 137E or 137G of this Act (orders relating to Northern Ireland offshore region), this section applies as if—(a) references to a marine enforcement officer included a person appointed as such by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland,(b) for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the relevant enforcement area were Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland inshore region and the Northern Ireland offshore region, and(c) subsections (3)(c) and (d) and (4) to (6) were omitted.”
95: Schedule 9, page 104, line 13, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
96: Schedule 9, page 104, line 15, leave out paragraph 30 and insert—“30 (1) Section 316 (regulations and orders) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4)(a)—(a) for “137” substitute “137G”; (b) after “MCZs” insert “etc”.(3) In subsection (6), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) any order under section 137E that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the levels of fees),”.”
97: Schedule 10, page 104, line 35, at end insert “, and(c) paragraph 15 makes consequential amendments.”
98: Schedule 10, page 105, line 39, at end insert—“Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/20143A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters is amended as follows.(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the north-western” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES subarea 5B that are within United Kingdom waters and to waters within ICES subareas 6 and 7 that are not within Union waters”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” and “Union waters” have the meaning they have in Regulation (EU) No 1380/ 2013.”(3) In Article 2 (survivability exemption), in paragraph 6 for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.(4) In Article 3a (de minimis exemptions in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)— (a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”;(b) in points (a), (b) and (c), for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.(5) For Article 5 (entry into force) substitute—“Article 5ExpiryThis regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.”Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/20143B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea is amended as follows.(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the North” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES division 2a and subarea 4 that are within United Kingdom waters”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” has the meaning it has in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.”(3) In Article 3a (de minimis exemption in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)—(a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”; (b) in the body, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.(4) Article 4a (Danish North Sea coast) is revoked.(5) For Article 5 (application) substitute—“Article 5ExpiryThis regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.””
99: Schedule 10, page 106, line 4, at end insert—“Regulation (EU) 2017/24034A Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets is revoked.”
100: Schedule 10, page 111, line 31, at end insert—“Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/22388A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.   (2) In Article 3 (exemptions for Norway lobster)—(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (b); (b) omit paragraph 3.(3) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice)—(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (c);(b) in paragraph 2, in point (b), for “80-99” substitute “80”; (c) omit paragraph 4.(4) In Article 8 (exemption for turbot), omit paragraph 2.(5) In Article 10 (de minimis exemptions)—(a) in point (f) after “6% in 2020” insert “and 2021”;(b) in each of points (f), (h) and (k) to (n), omit the words from “the de minimis” to the end;(c) after point (n) insert—“(o) in fisheries by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, TB, TBN) of mesh size 80-99mm in the United Kingdom waters of ICES subarea 4 and ICES Division 2a:a quantity of Norway lobster below the minimum conservation reference size, which shall not exceed 2% of the total annual catches of that species.”Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/22398B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.(2) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice), omit paragraph (2).(3) In Article 8 (de minimis exemptions)—(a) in paragraph 1, in each of points (d) to (k), omit “in 2020”; (b) omit paragraph 2.Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1238C In Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, in Article 14 (remedial measures for cod in the North Sea), omit paragraphs 2 to 4.”
101: Schedule 10, page 112, line 11, at end insert—“Consequential amendments15 (1) In the Sea Fishing (EU Recording and Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 (S.S.I. 2010/334) (as amended by the Exit Regulations)—(a) in article 2, in paragraph (1)—(i) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;(ii) in the definition of “third country recording and reporting requirement” omit paragraph (ii) (and the “or” before it);(b) in that article, for paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) Any expression used, and not defined, in this Order that is used in the Control Regulation or Regulation 404/2011, or that is used in both of those Regulations, has the meaning it has in the Regulation or Regulations in which it is used.”;(c) in article 6, omit paragraph (2);(d) in Schedule 2, in the table, omit the entries relating to Regulation 2017/2403.(2) In the Sea Fishing (EU Control Measures) (Scotland) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/320) (as amended by the Exit Regulations), in article 2(1)—(a) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;(b) in the definition of “third country control measure”—(i) omit “Regulation 2017/2403 or”; (ii) omit paragraph (a).(3) In this paragraph “the Exit Regulations” means the Fisheries (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/24).”
Motion on Amendments 23 to 101 agreed.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer was given to an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Tuesday 10 November.
“The Secretary of State was pleased to commit to updating colleagues about the latest developments on Covid support by placing regular updates in the House of Commons Library, the first of which will be delivered today. I am also pleased that the shadow Secretary of State will be visiting Standing Joint Command later this week to meet in person the senior military leadership delivering the support across the country.
The Armed Forces are renowned for their planning skills, technical capabilities and ability to provide rapid and effective deployed response. They are being put to good use yet again. At all times they are acting in support of, and at the request of, the civil authorities from every part of the United Kingdom. So far this year the Ministry of Defence has received 420 MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests, 341 of which have been Covid-related. The Armed Forces have provided enormous support while themselves taking all appropriate Covid precautions and while maintaining our critical defence outputs, ensuring that at all times they are protecting our country, our interests and our friends.
Our present support for the Government’s preparation for the winter period, including the Covid-19 response, is one of Defence’s highest priorities. Defence has established a winter support force of approximately 7,500 deployable personnel, in addition to the many defence medics already embedded in the NHS and the support, when called upon, of our defence scientists in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Defence is currently supporting 41 MACA tasks, including assistance to the whole-town testing pilot in Liverpool and the Birmingham City Council drop and collect scheme. Personnel have previously supported activities from the Nightingale facility construction, vaccine planning, personal protective equipment distribution and the staffing of testing centres. They remain ready to undertake further tasks.
Defence has made thorough preparations to contribute as requested to civil authorities’ responses through the MACA system and will keep the force elements held in readiness to do so under constant review, adjusting the capabilities provided to meet demand. The nation can be reassured, especially in this week of remembrance, that Defence stands ready, as ever, to support whenever, wherever and however required, and will continue to do so, for as long as is necessary.”

Lord Touhig: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be at one in thanking the men and women of our Armed Forces for the vital support they have given during the pandemic. Can the Minister confirm that the Covid support will have no adverse impact on training, standing commitments or our ability to respond to conflicts and threats? Can she also say how many military aid to civil authority requests are expected this winter? With news of a vaccine on the horizon, are the Armed Forces involved in planning its nationwide distribution and use?

Baroness Goldie: I thank the noble Lord very much for his tribute to the Armed Forces, which I am sure is endorsed throughout the Chamber. In 2020, there were 420 MACA requests, 341 of which were Covid-related. The MoD is currently supporting 41. As to future projections, we stand ready to offer support, but are awaiting invitations to provide it. On the important matter of the vaccine, I confirm that the Ministry of Defence has already deployed military personnel to the Vaccine Taskforce, supporting the central organisation and exploring how Defence could bring logistical support to the national rollout of a future vaccine.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I similarly pay tribute to the Armed Forces in this week of remembrance. Could the Minister say what impact work on Covid might have on the other activities of the Armed Forces and whether training is carrying on as normal? Clearly other threats will not decline.

Baroness Goldie: In relation to our current obligations, we have conducted prudent planning against a range of potential risks facing the nation over winter. We have a package of 7,500 personnel placed at heightened readiness to enable rapid response to HMG requests at this time of national crisis. Clearly the pandemic has disrupted some activity, but the MoD is endeavouring to ensure that we return to normal, in so far as that is consistent with the safety of our personnel. We ensure that whatever our personnel are asked to do is compliant with Public Health England.

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton: I declare an interest as a member of the Army Reserve. Living and working in the local community and with a host of civilian skills, reservists are ideally suited to MACA tasks, but are underutilised because there is a perception that, while cheap to hold, they are expensive to use. Can my noble friend look at ways to incentivise the single services to make better use of reserves?

Baroness Goldie: With their unique skills, the reservists have played a pivotal role in the response to Covid-19. They have been part of that response at every level. At one point, we had 2,300 Army reservists mobilised as part of Operation Rescript and the MoD’s contribution to the Covid-19 response. Currently, 340 reservists are mobilised to that operation and we have 100 additional reservists to support wider defence recovery. I pay tribute to their contribution.

Lord Dannatt: I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their appreciative comments about the use of the Armed Forces during the pandemic. Historically, deployment of the Armed Forces in support of civil authorities has been found from spare capacity within the Armed Forces. Does the Minister acknowledge that the size of the Armed Forces has been considerably reduced in recent years and, therefore, available spare capacity is also much reduced? Will the noble Baroness indicate whether, in the forthcoming integrated security and defence review, future support to civil authorities will become a formal military task and be properly resourced as such?

Baroness Goldie: I thank the noble Lord, and confirm that the responsibility of the MoD to support MACA requests is taken with the utmost seriousness and, as has been evident from the contribution this year, is responded to with great professionalism and skill. The integrated review is currently on hold and the Government are still to announce when that process, along with the spending review, will be published. I can reassure the noble Lord that the MoD conducted the most extensive research for the input to the review, in the analysis of both what we require now and what we anticipate we will require in the future. Given what we have been through this year, the Government are very sensitive to the significance of the MoD’s capacity to meet MACA requests.

Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston: My Lords, our Armed Forces are a United Kingdom asset that serve all four nations. Of those 420 requests for military aid to the civil authorities, of which 341 are Covid-related, could the Minister tell noble Lords how many came from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? In addition, 1,600 MoD medics are currently embedded in the NHS. Are there any plans to extend that embedding of MoD personnel in the NHS?

Baroness Goldie: I will need to offer to write to the noble Baroness with the specific information she requests. I can confirm that, across the United Kingdom, the MoD, through MACA response, has supported all parts of the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Will the Minister confirm that these schemes are of mutual benefit and that the forces get experience of planning, reconnaissance, deployment and evaluation? Will she say what effect this had had on recruitment? How many extra people have been recruited to our forces as a result?

Baroness Goldie: Yes, the personnel from the MoD participating in MACA responses have had hugely positive emotions in understanding the contribution they are making and seeing at first hand the appreciation of the public for their efforts. On the important issue of recruitment, I am pleased to say to the noble Lord that the intake to the regular Armed Forces in the 12 months to 1 July 2020 was up 12.9% compared with the previous 12 months, which is a very gratifying situation.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, I declare an interest: I have a child in the Armed Forces. Following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, the figure of 1,600 was given by the Minister in the other place—these are the medics from the Armed Forces currently embedded in the NHS. Can my noble friend confirm whether this figure includes fifth-year medical students? Perhaps it is an issue she will write to me on. Are there any plans that these students will be graduated early, as happened last year, so they can start to serve on the front line?

Baroness Goldie: [Inaudible.] I shall offer to write to the noble Baroness with detail.

Lord Houghton of Richmond: In times of nationwide civil emergency, the two most relevant military capabilities are a pool of disciplined manpower and a system of command and control, optimised for turning strategic aspirations into co-ordinated tactical action. A recurring lesson from past emergencies, from foot and mouth to Olympic security, indicates that this latter experience is not well understood by Government. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the military’s expertise in command and control is being properly harnessed?

Baroness Goldie: I would like to reassure the noble and gallant Lord that it is. He will understand, from his own knowledge, both the level and extent to which the MoD has provided advice to the highest levels of government. Much of that advice has been welcomed by government precisely because of the attributes that the noble and gallant Lord identified in relation to the MoD and Armed Forces’ experience of command and delivery.

Lord Balfe: As someone who has done a considerable amount of research into, and study of, eastern and central Europe, can I counsel the Minister to avoid using the Armed Forces for anything that resembles coercive control?

Baroness Goldie: I am not quite sure what my noble friend means by that phrase. If he is alluding to the possibility that the military will be asked to step in to enforce law and order, there is absolutely no intention for that to happen.

Lord Ramsbotham: Where are the people who are serving in Liverpool based at present? How far do they have to travel each day?

Baroness Goldie: Approximately 2,000 personnel are currently committed to the mass testing project in Liverpool. As to precisely where they are based, I do not have specific information, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that information.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, that brings the questions on that Statement to an end. We will move straight on to the next business.

Supporting Disadvantaged Families
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 9 November.
“Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, this Government have put an unprecedented package of support in place to strengthen the safety net for individuals, families, communities and businesses who need help at this critical time. We recognise that this has been a challenging year for everyone, especially for those who have lost their jobs and those families who are feeling the extra strain, worrying about putting food on the table or money in the meter. The Prime Minister has  been clear that this Government will use all their efforts to make sure that no child should go hungry this winter. This Government also want to ensure that every child reaches their full potential. That is why I am announcing a comprehensive package of support to see these families through the winter months and beyond, through the new Covid winter grant scheme, increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers, and the national rollout of the holiday activities and food programme for the longer holidays in 2021.
With Christmas coming, we want to give disadvantaged families peace of mind and help those who need it to have food on the table and other essentials so that every child will be warm and well fed this winter. Through the Covid winter grant scheme, we are delivering £170 million to local authorities in England, starting next month, to cover the period until the end of March. That fund builds on the £63 million already distributed earlier this year and, as then, funding will be disbursed according to an authority’s population, weighted by a function of the English index of multiple deprivation. Any Barnett consequentials are already included in the guaranteed £16 billion funding for the devolved Administrations, so there is funding available for every child in the UK, and I hope that the devolved Administrations will play their part in this mission.
Local councils have the local ties and knowledge, making them best placed to identify and help those children and families most in need, and it is important to stress that the scheme covers children of pre-school age, too. Targeting this money effectively will ease the burden faced by those families across the country worrying about the next bill coming through the letterbox or the next food shop. Grants will be made under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, and different from earlier in the year, they will carry conditions and reporting requirements to ensure that the scheme is focused on providing support with food and utility costs to vulnerable families with children who are affected by the pandemic. We will require that at least 80% of the grant is spent on children with their families, providing some flexibility for councils to help other vulnerable people. We will also require councils to spend at least 80% on food and key utilities, again providing some flexibility for other essentials.
In trying to give children the best start in life, it is important that food for young children and expectant mothers should be nutritious, as that will help in their future health and educational attainment. That is why we are increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers by more than a third, helping low-income families to buy fresh milk and fruit and vegetables, and helping to boost their health and readiness for school. From April 2021, the value of vouchers will rise from £3.10 to £4.25.
The third part of our comprehensive package is the extra support we will be giving children and families during the longer school holidays. After successful pilots of our holiday activities and food programme, I am pleased to let the House know that it will be expanded and rolled out across the country starting from Easter next year, through the summer and the Christmas holidays, supported by £220 million of funding.
Our manifesto set out our commitment to flexible childcare, and the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme has always been part of that commitment. We are building on the learning from the successful delivery of the programme over the past three years to expand it across England, as we had set out to do. The programme, which is being extended to all disadvantaged children, offers that vital connection for children during the longer school holidays to enriching activities such as arts and sport which will help them perform better in school, as well as a free, nutritious meal while they are there.
In May, the Government provided £16 million to charities to provide food for those struggling due to the immediate impacts of the pandemic. I announce today that we will match that figure again, making a further £16 million available to fund local charities through well-established networks and provide immediate support to frontline food aid charities, who have a vital role to play in supporting people of all ages. The package taken as a whole will make a big difference to families and children throughout the country as we continue to fight the virus.
We are taking a long-term, holistic approach, looking at health, education and hunger in the round, not just over the Christmas period but throughout the winter and beyond. This is not just about responding to the pressures of winter and Covid but about further rolling out the holiday activities fund, which is an established part of the Government’s approach to helping children reach their full potential. With this announcement, we are ensuring that as well as taking unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods, we are protecting younger generations.
We are living under extraordinary circumstances, which require an extraordinary response, but I am steadfast in taking action to support all children to fulfil their potential long after we have beaten the pandemic. Social justice has been at the heart of every decision this compassionate Conservative Government have made, whether that be protecting over 12 million jobs through our income support schemes, injecting over £9 billion into the welfare system or providing over four million food boxes to those shielding. This is yet another example of how the Government have supported people throughout the pandemic.”

Baroness Sherlock: We welcome the contents of this Statement. Any measures that can help to stop children going hungry over the tough months ahead must always be welcomed.
However, before I ask questions, let us look briefly at the context. I must say that I was a wee bit disappointed that the Statement made no reference anywhere to Marcus Rashford, even though everybody knows that this initiative is a response to his campaign for free school meals in the holidays. Can I invite the Minister to go on the record and pay tribute to Mr Rashford, as I do? It is quite an achievement on his part not only to force this Prime Minister to move but also to get the whole country talking about child poverty. Indeed, it is quite chastening for those of us who spend most of our lives talking about the issue, but it is a remarkable  achievement. If I am ever lucky enough to meet Marcus Rashford, after congratulating him, I think I might see if I can focus his attention next on the five-week wait or maybe the savings gateway and universal credit.
Although I am thrilled at his success, I wish that the Government had handled this better. There was a deeply depressing debate in the other place where hapless Tory MPs were forced to defend the Government’s stance on this, not just by disputing the Rashford free school meals plan but essentially by claiming that there is not an underlying problem. We need to be very careful how we talk about these matters because, as the national debate raged on, we started to hear parents once again being blamed for their poverty, with the old chestnuts appearing that if you give money or vouchers to poor parents, they will only spend them on drugs. Yet, out of this mess came one of the most heartwarming things I have seen this year, when the backlash against the Government’s position prompted a huge number of hospitality businesses, many of them badly hit by the pandemic, to offer to feed children free of charge during half-term when the Government did not.
Enough of that: I am delighted that the Government have now come round and agreed to take some action. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the House some more details on the package. First, we are told that there will be a new Covid winter grant scheme, which will give £170 million to English local authorities and, unlike previous grants,
“will carry conditions and reporting requirements to ensure that the scheme is focused on providing support with food and utility costs to vulnerable families with children who are affected by the pandemic.”
Are the Government going to define “vulnerable”? Is it about income or is it more than that? Does struggling to make ends meet count as vulnerable? Plenty of people who would not previously have classed themselves as vulnerable are losing their jobs or facing cuts in income as a result of this pandemic. Who is going to be covered by this scheme?
It is good to know that the Government will roll out holiday activities and food programmes across the country from Easter next year. Does that mean that the scheme will be in place for the next Easter holidays, in 2021, or will it kick in after Easter? We are told that the scheme is being extended to “all disadvantaged children”. Can the Minister tell the House what a disadvantaged child is for these purposes? Is it the same as a vulnerable child for the purposes of the Covid winter grant scheme? Are these separate schemes aimed at the same families or are they different schemes aimed at different families, and is there an overlap? Finally, we are told that the value of Healthy Start vouchers will be raised from £3.10 to £4.25 but not until next April. Can the Minister explain why it is not happening straightaway, given the amount of need in the country right now?
There is a much deeper issue here. During the campaign on extending free school meals, I was horrified to hear suggestions that the blame lay with parents for failing to feed their kids properly when the basic underlying problem is that too many parents just do not have enough money to make ends meet. Every week, more people are losing hours or losing jobs and they are finding that, despite years of paying in, our  social security system simply does not provide them with enough to live on. However, every time we mention this, Ministers simply repeat that they have given £9 billion et cetera. That is great—I am really glad that they have invested this money—but it is clearly not adequate to the scale of the problem. Food bank use is skyrocketing and people are falling into debt. That highlights that there just is not enough money in the system.
At the start of this crisis, we asked for five urgent steps to be taken. The first was an extension of the £20 increase in universal credit to legacy benefits. I urge the Minister again, as I did this morning, to explain to the House why the Government will not do that—that is, tell us not just that they will not but why. Why is it okay to give the money to universal credit recipients but refuse it to JSA and ESA? Secondly, we asked them to scrap the savings threshold on universal credit so that we were not punishing savers. Thirdly, we asked for an end to the terrible two-child limit. Fourthly, we asked for a suspension of the benefit cap so that everyone can get the extra money that the Government have announced. Fifthly, we asked them to turn the universal credit advance into a grant rather than a loan to address the five-week wait in the short term.
If Ministers had taken those basic steps, we would have fewer parents struggling to feed their children in the first place. I therefore urge the Minister to ask her colleagues to change their minds once more, to implement these five changes and then to take a longer look at why our social security system is failing to stop so many of our fellow citizens falling into poverty. This pandemic has already done enough damage to our children. Let us all work together to do what we can to stop it getting any worse.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, we welcome these measures and recognise the Government’s intentions to support disadvantaged families through winter and beyond—

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I am sorry, but we cannot hear the noble Baroness. Could she try again?

Baroness Janke: Can you hear me? We very much welcome these measures, and I too pay tribute to Marcus Rashford and his campaign.
I would like to understand a little more of the noble Baroness’s clarification of what is meant by “beyond”. I very much hope that there is to be a longer-term strategy on this issue, as criticisms I have heard from local people are that the Government appear to be following a policy of knee-jerk responses and quick fixes, while the public in general would welcome a much longer-term approach, which would give them more confidence. For example, is it the Government’s intention that the temporary measures taken during the pandemic are to be made permanent, such as the extension of the free school meals entitlement to families with no recourse to public funds? Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify that.
The Statement also said that local authorities have local ties and knowledge, and this is most certainly the case. Local authorities are to receive £160 million, to be added to the £63 million—[Inaudible.]

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I am sorry, but we cannot hear the noble Baroness. Can she get closer to the microphone?

Baroness Janke: I am right up against the microphone now. Can you hear me?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: We can hear you now.

Baroness Janke: Local authorities are to receive £160 million, to be added to the previous sum of £63 million which was distributed earlier in the year. This is to be paid as a one-off government grant. I would like to understand more about the basis of these measures. What consultations have taken place with local government and what were their outcomes?
The issue of conditionality was raised. How is that to be achieved and demonstrated? Are there to be target numbers of families or children? Are levels of participation to be measured, or perhaps there are measures of improved well-being that are to be reported upon?
What exactly is the basis of these sums of money? We are told that funding will be dispersed according to an authority’s population, weighted by a function of the English indices of multiple deprivation, so presumably we are looking at a sum per head. Can the noble Baroness say how much per head and for how many people?
Does the noble Baroness feel confident about the number of families that are to be helped, given that local authorities have had financial cuts of £16 million over the last 10 years and that their capacity is significantly reduced? Many important services for disadvantaged families no longer exist in many areas, such as family support schemes and community facilities such as libraries, sports and recreation, and local health promotion, and many of those may be required to implement the scheme. Does the noble Baroness feel that the sums of money here will be enough to achieve the objectives she describes in the Statement?
The noble Baroness talked about the importance of nutritious food. Has any financial assessment been made of the cost of providing this to the numbers involved? If so, it would be good to see it. The Food Foundation has established that, to pay for the Government-recommended “eatwell plates”, people on universal credit would need to spend around two-thirds of their non-housing income on food. It would help to understand the analysis that underpins these measures.
We all welcome the expansion of holiday activities for disadvantaged children. Can the Minister clarify how these children are to be identified? Who is eligible for these provisions? Existing criteria exclude many children, particularly in low-paid working families. We have welcomed the temporary measures that have been introduced during the current crisis. Can the Minister assure the House that these will remain in place?
We welcome the £16 million for charities to help those struggling to afford food, but surely this is no more than a sticking plaster. We must ensure that families’ income is sufficient so that they can afford to provide nutritious food for themselves and their children.  Removing the benefit cap and the three-child limit would help. If the Government do not intend to do that, what longer-term policies are being considered to ensure that families and children will no longer have to depend on short-term fixes and will have enough income to provide their own food and care for their families without depending on charities?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: My Lords, I will respond first to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, and then cover the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I am sorry that the audio of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, was not at all good. If I do not answer all her questions, I will go through Hansard tomorrow and make sure that she receives a written answer.
I am grateful that both noble Baronesses welcomed the Statement. Let me say right at the start that the Government much admire Marcus Rashford’s passion and commitment and are proud to have provided this invaluable support. I note the hopes of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for Marcus Rashford’s next campaign.
She also mentioned the comments about parents who use their benefits for purposes other than we would wish. We do not associate ourselves with those remarks. We are only too aware and appreciative of the difficult circumstances in which some parents find themselves at the moment. We are delighted that the hospitality industry came into its own and are glad that it was in a position to give extra help.
I am well aware that earlier at Questions, the noble Baroness was underwhelmed by my response about legacy benefits. I will try to be a little more helpful. Back in March, when there were no arrangements such as the furlough in place, UC had to take the strain until those schemes came online. The Government were trying to cushion those who had had a fall in income because they were made unemployed, or their earnings dropped, due to Covid-19. They were not trying to provide a general uplift in benefits. Those who were newly signed on to universal credit did so because they had seen a significant drop in their income, whereas those on legacy benefits had not seen the same fall.
Moving on to what we have done, we have announced a £170 million Covid winter grant scheme, to make sure that families get the help they need. We are giving this to councils because they are best placed to understand their communities. They know the most vulnerable children and families who need this money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, this is being done on a per-head-of-population basis, according to the deprivation indices.
We are also investing £220 million more than existing funding allocated to the programme. This will mean that children eligible for free school meals will have the option to join a holiday time programme that provides healthy food and funds activities during the summer, Christmas and Easter holidays. I am afraid I am not able to comment on more than that timeframe. I will write to the noble Baroness about why the Healthy Start payments will not start until April 2021.
On the holiday activities and food programme, much has been said about the speed at which it has been introduced and whether it was a reaction, but I will say that we have been piloting this initiative and trying to work out how best to deliver it. This was not a knee-jerk response or something we thought we had better get on and do; it was something we piloted and tested. We made sure that, when we announced it, we knew that it would work. Since the summer, 50,000 children have benefited from the holiday activities and food fund, and a further 2,500 additional breakfast clubs have been started.
Will all children in England be eligible for a place on a HAFF programme? The programme will make free places available to children eligible for free school meals in their local authority for a minimum of four hours a day, four days a week, six weeks a year. This will cover four weeks in the summer and a week’s worth of provision in each of the Easter and Christmas holidays. As I have said before, local authorities have the flexibility to decide how to do this and how to use the money.
As I expected and I understand, there has been a call for the £20 uplift to be extended to legacy benefits, and I have been very clear about the Government’ position on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issues of the savings threshold, the two-child limit, the benefit cap and advances into grants. I have made clear that the Government do not have any plans at the moment to change those things, and, as my Secretary of State said in the other place,
“advances are actual grants to people—they are just the phasing of universal credit payments over the year”—
and they are repayable within a year—
“and soon to be over two years if that is what claimants want.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 642.]
We are listening and extending the time.
Where we have been doing the local pilots, there has been extensive discussion on interfacing with local authorities. I understand that the Government have written to all the chief executives of the local authorities, and, at this stage in the proceedings, the announcement and commitment have gone down very well. I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, how much it is per head because it will be up to local authorities to say where the money goes and spend it most effectively.
Understandably, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the point about local authorities and underfunding. We are giving councils unprecedented support during the pandemic: a package of £6.4 billion so far. We recognise that there will be individual councils with unique circumstances, and we encourage them to approach MHCLG to discuss their future financial position.
Before I close this part of the questioning, I will make the point that Covid has certainly made life very difficult for people—nobody is trying to ignore that—but, underlying this, we believe that parents are responsible for their children. It is not the state’s job to take that responsibility, other than in these very difficult times, where we are trying to do everything we can. One of the areas I have responsibility for is the Child Maintenance Service. You would not believe the extent to which people try to get out of their responsibilities to pay for their children. We are working very hard to get this  money back. As it stands, there are 130,000 children who are owed £381.3 million, and I am doing everything I can to get that money to children because it would make a huge difference to their lives.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, naturally, I am extremely pleased the Government are responding to this very real need, even if as something of a reaction to public disquiet. Marcus Rashford is clearly an artist on and off the field.
This money will obviously make a real impact in areas of disadvantage and poverty. However, I am sad to say I must add to them the current plight of freelancers and their families. Despite the Chancellor’s generous support for the arts, it is a fact that this section of society is falling through the support network provided by the Government. I know of people who are seriously worried about how they will feed their families this winter and this Christmas.
In anticipation of the Minister’s response, I put it to her that not only are a huge proportion of freelancers unable to access SEISS according to the Government’s own figures but they are unable to claim universal credit for the following reason. If they have been saving to pay tax on earnings made prior to Covid-19, they could easily have the savings as a couple that exceed the £16,000 threshold—money that is ultimately destined for the Chancellor.
Although I find myself incredulous at my own words that, for example, a highly skilled violinist of many years’ standing in the profession might not be able to feed his family this winter, that is in fact the case. When Keir Starmer in the other place gave the example of Chris, the photographer, to the Prime Minister at PMQs yesterday, Mr Johnson completely dodged the question, saying Chris would be better off once we had dealt with the virus. That is obvious, but I doubt Chris felt this solved his immediate and imminent financial crisis. Can the Minister say whether her department and the Chancellor will look at the predicament of freelancers in our society? Secondly, will they be able to access the support announced in the Statement?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I thank the noble Lord for that poignant comment. I understand his concern and distress about this situation. The issue of the support—or otherwise, as he would say—for freelancers rests with the Treasury, but I will go back to the Treasury and get answers to those questions, especially about the savings, where they put money aside to pay their bill. I will talk to those in the department to see if, in those circumstances, people can access universal credit and the help we are announcing today. I hope he will give me time to do that.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, at a time when it is claimed we have more food banks than McDonald’s restaurants in our country, and following  the rather disappointing response to the Economic Affairs Committee’s report Universal Credit Isn’t Working, when will the Government end the anguish and uncertainty facing families who stand to lose £1,000 a year unless the standard allowance is made permanent after April? How can it be right to deduct up to a quarter of universal credit payments from families due to historic debt arising from faults in legacy systems, much of which they are completely unaware of? Finally, when will the department make a decision on the benefit cap, which affects 7% of families with children?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I will answer again on the £20 uplift. We are in discussion with officials at the Treasury: when a decision has been made, Parliament will be advised. The issue of historic debt is well documented and well discussed. Nothing I can say now will make that situation any different. However, where people are struggling, even when the level has been reduced to the maximum of 25% being taken off, please will they talk to their work coaches, who will turn themselves inside out to help? That is probably not the answer the noble Lord wants—but that is what they are there to do. As things stand, there are no plans to change the benefit cap.

Bishop of Durham: I warmly welcome so much in the Statement and in the decisions made; I also associate myself with those who ask why it did not all happen a bit more quickly. None the less, this has exposed the underlying fundamental structural issues which mean that we are not tackling child poverty in the round and as a whole. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to creating really long-term solutions by forming a child poverty commission, as proposed by faith leaders in their recent letter to the Prime Minister?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The right reverend Prelate is consistent in the issues that he raises, and I understand that. As for this happening more quickly, as I said, we were piloting and we were in dialogue. We were not sitting around waiting to be kicked into touch. As I have also said before, we have tested to make sure that these things can work. As for the long-term issue of a child poverty commission, I am not aware of any plans, but I will go away and double-check for him. I take this opportunity to thank the Church and all the faith groups who are supporting their communities in such an outstanding way.

Baroness Drake: My Lords, for the Government, protecting children is a moral imperative, because children cannot protect themselves. He may not have used those actual words, but they underpin the simple and compelling request from Marcus Rashford; that is why it was so clearly understood by the public and local businesses in their communities. I welcome the Statement as a contribution to preventing children going hungry, but this is a problem growing in prevalence and urgency. The role of local government is important, but may I push the Minister further on the question put by my noble friend Lady Sherlock about how “vulnerable” will be defined? That will be key in capturing the population to be helped and ensuring that some vulnerable families and children are not  missed. For example, food aid charities have identified the emergence of the newly hungry—a growing cohort of people previously in jobs, who have been forced to use food banks and claim benefits for the first time during the pandemic. Will the Minister write, giving more detail on how the DWP will define vulnerable families in the Covid winter grant scheme, to ensure and give confidence that that category will include all those who need help?
There is a second example. On 9 November in the other place, the Secretary of State, Dr Coffey, said that
“every child has no need to go hungry in this country”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 649.]
and that there would be
“funding available for every child in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 637.]
But she did not expressly answer a question posed by Stephen Timms, so I ask the Minister that question again now. Will she confirm that this package of support extends to families who have no recourse to public funds?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: Of course we agree completely that children cannot protect themselves, and we must all do our part to protect them. Local government’s role is important, and we urge all partners in the communities that work with their local authorities, and the community groups with which they have relationships, to work together to identify those they know who really need this support. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness, as she requests, about the term “vulnerable”. As for those with no recourse to public funds, local authorities can, and already do, use their judgment to assess what support they may lawfully give to each person on an individual basis, taking into account their needs and circumstances. That includes providing a basic safety net option to individuals regardless of their immigration status, if there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution—for example, if there are community care needs or serious health problems—and there is a risk to a child’s well-being.

Lord Addington: My Lords, it is odd when we talk about child poverty as though it has happened with the pandemic. Food poverty during the holidays has been with us for a long time. In that context, it is only fair to ask what the Government’s long-terms plans are. They must have seen this coming for a long time. What are they going to do to make sure that the whole of the school holidays—not just six weeks—are covered? Will they make sure that in future they have a coherent plan to ensure that children get through the whole period with enough nourishment, so that they are not in a state of low nutrition, meaning that they cannot learn for a few weeks when they get back to school? Marcus Rashford did a wonderful job. It is appalling that the Government had to be told by him what to do and that they did not listen to their own Back-Benchers.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: On a long-term plan, the only commitment that I can make today on behalf of the Government is the one in the announcement.  That is the straight answer on that point. I note the noble Lord’s observations in the latter part of his contribution and just say that we have listened to Marcus Rashford and others, piloted the initiative, and responded accordingly.

Baroness Eaton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that support with food costs will not be confined to families with school-age children but will extend to those with pre-school children as well?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The £170 million scheme recognises that more people might feel under pressure this winter and will allow local authorities to support a wider group of vulnerable people, including those with children of pre-school age. Precise eligibility for the Covid winter grant scheme will be decided by each local authority. This is not about numbers; it is for local authorities to decide how they can best support those in need. The Healthy Start scheme payments are also set to increase from £3.10 to £4.25 a week from next April.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: The Statement said that the Government want to give disadvantaged families peace of mind. Welcome as this week’s package is, why do the Government continue to refuse to act on calls from children’s and anti-poverty organisations? Their work shows that improvements to social security support for children is essential for their parents’ peace of mind and for tackling child poverty and hunger in both the short and longer term, as called for by the right reverend Prelate.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Baroness is correct in that we want to give people peace of mind, as reflected in the announcement that we have made. The right reverend Prelate made his statement, and all I can say is that our Secretary of State, the department and the Government are working tirelessly around the clock to make sure that there is a package in place that does what it can to support people in these difficult times.

Lord Taylor of Goss Moor: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with the comments of others in congratulating Marcus Rashford on persuading the Government to take these rightful actions. As a single father, I am not disadvantaged financially, but I have direct experience with three young boys—two of whom, at different times in the last month, have had to self-isolate at home because of potential contact with coronavirus cases at school—of just how difficult it can be for families in these circumstances.
First, can the Minister assure us that no one will now have to choose between looking after their children when they need looking after and earning an income—that the financial support will always be there for everyone who needs it? Secondly, can the Minister comment on the rollout of computers to schools to make sure that every child at home gets the opportunity for education? It is absolutely clear, from all the evidence presented to the Government, that the coronavirus period has been a catastrophe for many children, particularly those who were already disadvantaged.

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I can appreciate the noble Lord’s commitment to his three boys and the difficulties with their care caused by Covid. We have done as much as we possibly can to make sure that childcare stays in place, even paying for places when nurseries have been closed. As for enabling parents to look after their children, and not having to choose between earning money and not going to work, I think most employers have been very considerate about these circumstances and have been as flexible as they can. In relation to computers for schools and the disruption to education, the noble Lord’s point is very well made. I will ask my colleague in the DfE to write to him specifically about computers.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, while welcoming the contents of the Statement, I have to say that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that there needs to be a child poverty commission. The Statement clearly highlights that there has been such a deficit in welfare and child welfare policy. Will the Minister talk to her Secretary of State to ensure that discussions get under way about an immediate review of welfare policy in light of the pandemic?
Secondly, could she provide an estimate of what amount of money under the Barnett consequentials or Covid winter grant scheme—£16 billion has been allocated to the devolved Administrations—has actually been allocated to Northern Ireland? Will she further ensure that that money is dedicated to disadvantaged families and does not go into the central pot of the Department of Finance?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I will go back and speak to my Secretary of State about the points the noble Baroness raises. I cannot make any commitment further than that. As the noble Baroness says, £16 billion is given to the devolved Administrations to allow them to plan. Last week, in the Chancellor’s Statement, there was a recognition that, through the Barnett formula, every time we do certain different policies, the devolved Administrations want to do additional things. We have a mature relationship with the devolved Administrations. They have been set a guaranteed amount of funding, and I assure the noble Baroness that there is still more room in terms of Barnett consequentials. The Chancellor was right to make the decision he did, and I am glad she welcomes it.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I too welcome this Statement and this decision, and congratulate the Government. I urge my noble friend, in line with her responses, including to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, to continue urgently talking to the Treasury about the extra £20 uplift in universal credit being extended, given that the opportunity of work is much more difficult in the current environment. I also encourage the Government to look at the position of children in particular, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ritchie, have said.
Could my noble friend the Minister please join me in praising the work of others, not just Marcus Rashford—the local organisations and religious groups across the country involved in providing these activities and food for children, who have helped make the pilot scheme such a success?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: At the risk of repeating myself, the issue that the noble Baroness raises about the £20 uplift has been raised many times, and we undertake to come back to Parliament to advise on the outcome of discussions with the Treasury. On praising the work of local organisations, I have already given an absolute endorsement to faith groups—the Church of England, Jewish communities, the Salvation Army—and many other charities that I wish I could mention by name. We have seen some fantastic provision in the last three years and we want to take that learning experience into the future delivery of holiday activities and food programmes.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I of course welcome the positive aspect of the Statement, but it feels to me that the Government have reacted to crisis under pressure from local government, the voluntary sector and dynamic individuals. A new report from the Local Government Association, A Child-centred Recovery, points out that children have been disproportionately impacted by the Covid crisis. The report calls for a
“cross-Whitehall strategy that puts children and young people at the heart of recovery”.
It seems blindingly clear that a cross-departmental strategy for children should be an urgent priority. Will the Minister take this forward?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that there is already a forward-looking approach that is long-term and cross-departmental, with DWP working closely with the DfE and Defra to target support to those in need. The Secretary of State set out in the other place her desire to ensure that every child has the chance to realise their full potential, and the long-term thinking in this support package will help to achieve this far more than piecemeal reform. I ask the noble Baroness to write to me if there are particular things that she would like included; I am quite prepared to make those available to the department.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, clearly the additional funding is welcome, but I note that the Statement suggests that there will be additional reporting requirements and conditions for local authorities. What work have the Government done in talking to local authorities to ensure that such requirements are not overly onerous? It would be something of an own goal to have money being spent that local authorities do not have the time to disburse. In the longer term, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to make child poverty history?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: The noble Baroness raises a really important point about reporting. We will need some information back for the sums of money that we will be spending. I sincerely hope that the reporting requirements will not be onerous, but that they will enable us to understand the impact of the spending and the difference it makes, and help us understand what needs to be done next. I really hope that will be case. I can only reiterate that we are working hard as a Government to make sure that children and families have the support they need in these even more difficult times.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn her name, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, what is happening about the decline in the number of health visitors in respect of the youngest children in disadvantaged families? If the Government, as was said in the Statement, are taking a long-term holistic approach, why has there been no national health inequality strategy since 2010? Is this why life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010—something that has not happened since 1900, according to The Marmot Review 10 Years On?

Baroness Stedman-Scott: There is an exam question to finish this session. I will need to ask my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to provide the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with the information about health visitors and the other valid points that he raises.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, all speakers who wished to ask questions on the Statement have done so. We will move straight on to the next Statement, but I recommend that we just take a few moments to allow Front-Bench Members and others to find their right places.

Covid-19 Update
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 10 November.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on coronavirus.
The virus remains a powerful adversary, but we are marshalling the forces of science and human ingenuity. These forces are growing stronger, and I have no doubt that in time, we will prevail. The latest figures show that the number of cases continues to rise, so we must all play our part to get it under control. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS, until a vaccine can be deployed. That is our plan, and with the resolve that we must all show, we can see that that plan is working.
Before turning to progress on testing and on vaccines, I first want to update the House on our response to the new variant strain of coronavirus that has been identified in Denmark. This shows how vigilant we must be. We have been monitoring the spread of coronavirus in European mink farms for some time, especially in the major countries for mink farming such as Denmark, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. Spain had already announced the destruction of its farmed mink population in April. On Thursday evening last, I was alerted to a significant development in Denmark of new evidence that the virus had spread back from mink to humans in a variant form that did not fully respond to Covid-19 antibodies.
Although the chance of this variant becoming widespread is low, the consequences, should that happen, would be grave. So working with my right honourable  friends the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary and all the devolved Administrations, we removed the travel corridor for travel from Denmark in the early hours of Friday morning. On Saturday and over the weekend, following further clinical analysis, we introduced a full ban on all international travel from Denmark. British nationals or residents who are returning from Denmark, whether directly or indirectly, can still travel here, but they must fully self-isolate, along with all other members of their household, until two weeks after they were in Denmark. These are serious steps, and I understand the consequences for people, but I think that the whole House will understand why we had to act so quickly and decisively. Be in no doubt, we will do what needs to be done to protect this country.
We do not resile from our duty to protect and, to suppress the virus, we must harness new technology to keep people safe and, in time, to liberate. Our ability to suppress the virus begins with testing for it and the House will know that we have been driving forward testing capacity based on new technologies and old. Yesterday, our polymerase chain reaction—PCR—testing capacity stood at 517,957, which is the largest testing capacity in Europe. Over 10 million people in the UK have now been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app is now approaching 20 million downloads, yet this historic expansion is just one part of our critical national infrastructure for testing. Just as we drive testing capacity on the existing technology, so, too, have we invested in the development of the new. I have been criticised for this obsession with new testing capacity, but we have not wavered from the task, and we are now seeing the fruits of this effort.
Last week, we expanded the pilot in Stoke-on-Trent to Liverpool, where we have deployed enough of the cutting-edge lateral flow tests to offer tests to the whole city. These tests can deliver a result on someone’s infectiousness in under 15 minutes, so that they can get almost immediate reassurance about their condition and so that we can find and isolate the positives and reassure the negatives. To make this happen, NHS Test and Trace has been working side by side with the logistical heft of our armed services and Liverpool City Council, and I want to thank Mayor Joe Anderson and his whole team for their work.
Next, these tests allow us from today to begin rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, which will help to keep people safe when they go into hospital and help to keep my wonderful colleagues in the NHS safe, too. The next step is to roll out this mass testing capability more widely, and I can tell the House that last night I wrote to 67 directors of public health who have expressed an interest in making 10,000 tests available immediately and making available lateral flow tests for use by local officials according to local needs at a rate of 10% of their population per week. That same capacity—10% of the population per week—will also be made available to the devolved Administrations. By combining the local knowledge of public health leaders with our extensive national infrastructure, we can tackle this virus in our communities and help our efforts to bring the R down. Testing provides confidence, and it is that confidence that will help to get Britain back on her feet once more.
While we expand testing to find the virus, the best way to liberate and to get life closer to normal is a vaccine, and I can report to the House the news of the first phase 3 trial results of any vaccine anywhere in the world. After tests on 43,000 volunteers, of whom half got the vaccine and half got a placebo, interim results suggest that it is proving 90% effective at protecting people against the virus. This is promising news. We in the UK are among the first to identify the promise shown by the vaccine, and we have secured an order of 40 million doses. That puts us towards the front of the international pack, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that have yet to report their phase 3 results, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
I want to make it clear to the House that we do not have a vaccine yet, but we are one step closer. There are many steps still to take. The full safety data are not yet available, and our strong and independent regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will not approve a vaccine until it is clinically safe. Until it is rolled out, we will not know how long its effect lasts, or its impact not just on keeping people safe but on reducing transmission. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, said yesterday that this was like the first goal scored in a penalty shoot-out:
‘You have not won the cup yet, but it tells you that the goalkeeper can be beaten.’
And beat this virus we must, we can and we will. Yesterday’s announcement marks an important step in the battle against Covid-19, but, as the Prime Minister said, we must not slacken our resolve. There are no guarantees, so it is critical that people continue to abide by the rules and that we all work together to get the R number below 1.
If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready to begin a large-scale vaccination programme, first to priority groups, as recommended by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, then rolling it out more widely. Our plans for deployment of a Covid vaccine are built on tried and tested plans for a flu vaccine, which we of course deploy every autumn. We do not yet know whether or when a vaccine is approved, but I have tasked the NHS with being ready from any date from 1 December. The logistics are complex, the uncertainties are real and the scale of the job is vast, but I know that the NHS, brilliantly assisted by the armed services, will be up to the task.
I can tell the House that last night we wrote to GPs, setting out £150 million of immediate support and setting out what we need of them, working alongside hospitals and pharmacies, in preparing for deployment. The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done for us this year. I want to thank in advance my NHS colleagues for the work that this will entail. I know that they will rise to the challenge of being ready, when the science comes good, to inject hope into millions of arms this winter.
The course of human history is marked by advances where our collective ingenuity helps us to vanquish the most deadly threats. Coronavirus is a disease that strikes at what it is to be human, at the social bonds  that unite us. We must come together as one to defeat this latest threat to humanity. There are many hard days ahead, many hurdles to overcome, but our plan is working. I am more sure than ever that we will prevail together.”

Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, this Statement was made in the Commons on Tuesday and, as we know, events move quickly where the coronavirus pandemic is concerned. Since Tuesday, further details about the welcome breakthrough in the development of a vaccine have been emerging and there is much scope for optimism. Also welcome is that the Government have, at last, agreed to a six-day travel window for students in England next month, after the end of lockdown, so that they can go home before Christmas and undertake periods of isolation, if needed, and be with their families. This requires mass testing on university campuses before students can leave, so can the Minister update the House on the plans and arrangements for this, please?
However, yesterday we also reached the grim milestone of Britain’s Covid-19 death toll passing 50,000—a sobering reminder of the severity of the crisis, as we struggle through the second wave. As Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, said:
“Behind these numbers is a devastated family, one for every death, and they have to be uppermost in our mind.”
The announcement in Tuesday’s Statement of twice-weekly routine testing for front-line NHS staff is a very important development. It is vital not just for protecting staff, but for infection control in healthcare settings. We have been pressing for a systematic programme for this for months. Can the Minister please update the House on the progress and roll-out timescales to which the Government are now working?
On testing more broadly, the Government have announced plans for the mass distribution of lateral flow tests. I understand that local directors of public health have been asked to develop local strategies, but does the Minister agree that families with a loved one in a care home should be given priority access to these tests, so that they can see, and hold the hand of, that loved one? Will public health teams be put in charge of contract tracing from day one? At a Commons Select Committee this week, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is in charge of test and trace, finally admitted what we have been saying all along: that people are not self-isolating
“because they find it very difficult … the need to keep earning and … feed your family is … fundamental”.
Does the Minister therefore accept that a better package of financial support is needed to ensure isolation is adhered to? Can the Minister also tell the House if it is the Government’s intention to reduce the isolation period? What assessment has been made of evidence that a negative PCR swab, seven days after exposure, could release someone from quarantine?
The vaccine is a moment of great hope and optimism, in a bleak, dismal year that has shattered so many lives and families. The Government need to continue to be optimistic, but must be cautious to resist the urge to talk up and overpromise, and adopt their usual best-in-the-world rhetoric. As further details about the  vaccine emerge, there will be many questions, and I am sure noble Lords will follow these up. We strongly support the priority list drawn up by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, under which care home residents and staff get the vaccine first, followed by the over-80s and other NHS and care staff. There will need to be widespread consultation with key stakeholders on the arrangements, timings, resources and logistics. Given past experience, can the Minister specifically reassure the House that the adult social care sector, and care homes in particular, will be fully involved in planning delivery of and administering the vaccine?
Just as important, how will the disproportionate impact of the virus on minority ethnic communities be taken into account, when drawing up the final priority list arrangements? What is the Government’s working assumption of what proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated to establish herd immunity and bring the R rate below one? Can the Minister outline the latest clinical thinking around vaccination of children?
I understand that each person will require two shots of the vaccine, three weeks apart, and that protection develops a month after the first shot. Details of the Government’s plan for what amounts to the biggest vaccine manufacture, campaign and distribution in history are beginning to emerge. We need to learn lessons from the failures of the rollout of test and trace, and the early procurement of PPE. None of us wants to see booking systems overloaded with people told to travel miles, as we have seen with testing, so when will we see the Government develop that plan and their overall strategy?
Are the Government working with international partners to ensure that there are enough raw materials, enzymes and bioreactors to guarantee the mass manufacturing needed? Will there be the cold chain for transport and storage in various parts of the country for the Pfizer vaccine, which needs to be kept at minus 70 degrees centigrade? Have arrangements begun for procurement of the appropriate storage equipment? Will liquid nitrogen and freezers be provided to health centres, doctors’ practices and care homes? How is the vaccine to be distributed and administered to ensure that it is kept at such low temperatures?
On safety, it is comforting that the Deputy CMO, Jonathan Van-Tam, has assured us that he would urge his elderly mother to be vaccinated and that safety will not be compromised, despite the speed of the programme. The regulator, the MRHA, has rightly promised that there is no chance that it will compromise on standards of safety or effectiveness. How do the Government plan to get that message across to the public?
We know that vaccine hesitancy and denial is a growing problem. Labour has offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to build public confidence in the vaccine, promote take-up and dispel anti-vax myths, many of which are not just fiction but malicious. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.

Baroness Jolly: I thank the Minister. I am going to address testing and tracing. He may not have answers but I should be grateful if he could write to me. There have been more than 10 million downloads of the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app. There have  also been many complaints of Bluetooth draining batteries. I second those. Will he confirm whether there is a solution in the pipeline for that issue? If people do as I do and just switch off Bluetooth, the system will not work. How many of these app users are active? If 10 million people are actively telling the world where they are and are checking in and out of where they have been, that is wonderful. But if they do not do so, it is not terribly helpful.
Critically, how many people have been triggered via the app to isolate? Of those, what proportion have had their isolation checked and by whom? Testing is quick and easy but the delay in response time is unhelpful. Swab processing time is not reducing due to the increase in the number of swabs, and labs are taking longer. Is there yet sufficient capacity, and how many staff are being trained weekly to take on the extra capacity? Can the Minister indicate the cost of taking a swab and getting the results back to the individual? Finally, will he confirm when he expects to move to lateral flow tests, which are much quicker and would transform the lives of the staff of care homes, their residents and visiting families?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful questions of the noble Baronesses. I shall try to answer them as completely as I can but will write on any that I have omitted. As regards the questions about students, the programme of works with universities is extremely ambitious. I pay tribute to vice-chancellors and university administrations for working extremely closely with the Government, with the test and trace service and the DfE to mobilising the necessary arrangements in order to achieve the return home for Christmas.
This will include a large amount of mass testing on university campuses and in digs. There have already been successful pilots at Durham and De Montfort, using a variety of testing techniques and formats. Some tests have been done using telemedicine, some using traditional clipboard and picnic table techniques. There is further testing piloting to be done, but the indications are that this is proving an extremely successful model. It means that students can look forward to returning home for Christmas, confident that those who have the disease have been screened, and families can look forward to seeing students safely again.
On the testing of NHS workers, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a priority. We are moving quickly on this. The purchase of tens of millions of lateral flow tests is a complete game-changer, and we remain committed to providing testing for the 1.3 million NHS workers. We aim to use lateral flow tests for some of these tests. NHS workers are themselves clinically trained, and it is appropriate for them to be able to use these tests. Therefore, we believe we can change the course of staff testing in the NHS environment using the new technology and a new approach to testing. I am extremely grateful to NHS colleagues for their participation in this important initiative.
Turning to DPHs, the noble Baroness is right that this is an important breakthrough. Again, the rollout of the lateral flow tests is important in that. She asked me about care homes, and she could have equally  asked me about schools. I can deliver the same message on both: we have been sensitive to the appeals by DPHs for autonomy—for them to be able to make their own decisions, use their local intelligence and use their insight. That is why we have been reluctant to give any firm guidance on how they could or should use those tests. It is entirely up to DPHs to use the tests in the way they choose. But it is our expectation that some of those tests will be used in care homes, though there are other provisions for care home testing, and some will be used in schools, as well as for outbreak management and community testing.
The period for isolation is a subject under constant and rolling review by the CMO’s office and the policy team at DPH. I wish I could provide some kind of breakthrough—that the virus had in some way changed and was no longer infectious in people after a week or eight or nine days—but I am afraid I cannot provide that information. The frustrating thing about this virus is that it sits in the back of the throat or nose and remains infectious for an unfeasibly long time. That is why we are cautious about making dramatic changes in the isolation protocols.
What rapid testing provides is the opportunity to do frequent testing. The noble Baroness asked me about seven-day PCR tests; more likely and efficacious would be regular testing, every day or every other day, using the lateral flow tests, to do some form of test and release. We believe that avenue is more likely, and the CMO’s office is looking closely at that. It is entirely up to that office to make announcements on that score.
On adult social care, I reassure the noble Baroness that adult and child social care colleagues are fully involved in the preparations for a vaccine. She is right that social care provides its own set of challenges for the administration of the vaccine, but those are exactly the people we need to target with the vaccine. That is why they, particularly the elderly, are at the highest level of the JCVI’s prioritisation list. We are putting all our efforts into making sure that the vaccine delivery works for them.
The noble Baroness asked about ethnic minorities. May I put the question slightly differently? A number of difficult-to-reach groups have seen a high infection rate. It is a priority for us to make sure that the message on the vaccine breaks through any cultural, linguistic, demographic or other social barriers to get through to those groups who need it. They are not groups defined by race or the colour of their skin but by their proximity or otherwise to the normal course of government. We have learned through Covid that these groups are incredibly important from a public health point of view. From a values point of view, we owe it to them to do our best to reach them and we are putting the resources in place to do that. As for children, we have no current plans to vaccinate them. In terms of international partners, we are very focused on ensuring that all the intellectual property and manufacturing resources that we can possibly effect are put to work to get the vaccine into the arms of those around the world.
On cold storage, I reassure the noble Baroness that we have been on this for months. We have been aware of the demanding storage need of the Pfizer vaccine for a substantial amount of time and cold storage arrangements have been put in place. It is not necessary  for that cold storage to be literally at the end of every street because the travel time for the vaccine is reasonably flexible. We have in place exactly what we need, not only for the Pfizer vaccine but for the Oxford vaccine and the others in the pipeline. JVT and Dr June Raine at the MHRA were crystal clear when they said that safety will not be compromised. I endorse their comments.
I will say a few words about our approach to managing messages to those who might feel anxious about the vaccine. This is not a moment for rebuttal or for attacking those who have questions about the vaccine, whatever those questions are and however far-fetched they might be. Our approach is to take all questions at face value, tackle them sincerely and approach them in an open-hearted way. By being defensive we play into the hands of those who have bad intentions, and by being aggressive we only amplify those causing trouble. Instead, we want to have an open dialogue with those who have concerns to emphasise the safety of the vaccine and, more generally, the normality of taking vaccines. It is with that kind of approach that we hope to deal with those who have concerns about taking vaccines.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked a number of questions about the app. I cannot give her precise numbers on absolutely everything she asked but I can reassure her on a couple of things. There have been 20 million downloads, not 10 million. Take-up of the app has been enormous and, week on week, we see a huge number of check-ins on the venue-based element of the app, which is a huge part of its effectiveness. It helps us enormously with contact tracing. As for Bluetooth and the battery, I am disappointed to hear that the noble Baroness has had trouble with her phone. On the whole, that is not the feedback we have had from users and the recent update has emphasised the low-energy aspects of the Bluetooth protocol that the app uses. We think it will improve the performance of the app and lessen its drain on the battery.
The noble Baroness asked about tests; I will answer broadly. The innovation that we have seen in diagnostics for Covid has been incredible. It has included far-fetched—to me at least—technologies such as mass spectrometry. Some innovations have used the plastic lateral flows, which, although low-tech in their appearance, use extremely advanced technologies and chemicals to achieve accuracy, speed and cost performance. Some, such as LAMP, have taken old technologies and repurposed them for a new use. It has been extremely exciting to see. It is my aspiration that we will see an inflection point in diagnostics in the UK. This will aid an overall strategic step towards early intervention and put diagnostics at the heart of our medical science. It has already played an important part for a long time, but this will put it centre stage. I pay tribute to the work of Professor Mike Richards, whose review of the future vision for diagnostics in the NHS provides us with a target to aim for as we expand and invest in our diagnostics around Covid.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, we come to the 30 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Lord Patel: My Lords, the Minister referred to several areas where the lateral flow test will be deployed. The early reports from Liverpool’s mass screening using the test suggests that it performs well, with higher specificity and sensitivity, meaning that there is a negligible number of false positives and false negatives. That being so—and accepting that the vaccine will change the whole scene when it is available—apart from the areas that he has already mentioned, can he confirm what I have just said and give us the latest figures from Liverpool? Can he go on to say what plans the Government are making for the deployment of this test in other public areas to open up the economy?

Lord Bethell: I thank the noble Lord for his characteristically detailed and forensic question. The lateral flow test, as I am sure he knows, has the terrific advantage of giving very few false positives, but we do not pretend that it gives a clinical-level analysis of all the negatives. We therefore do not use it in a clinical setting as a symptomatic test; we use it as a screening test for asymptomatic cases. That is why it has been so valuable in a mass testing environment such as Liverpool. We can back up the tests of those who are positive with a double test, either with another lateral flow test or with a PCR test, to ensure that we do not create a problem with too many false positives. We are working on the protocols now to figure out exactly what kind of rate of second testing we need to get a fair analysis.
The noble Lord is entirely right that the vaccine will be a game-changer, but not everyone will take it immediately and we are not sure how long each vaccine will last for, so there will be a role for testing even after the vaccine has been deployed. In the meantime, testing is very much focused on social care, clinical workers, schools and universities. Those are the four areas where we are focused at the moment, but we hope it can be used further to enable the opening of the economy, as he alluded to.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, there have been estimates that hospital-acquired Covid infections are as high as one-quarter of all hospitalised Covid patients, which seems pretty shameful and is likely to be a major contributor to the Covid death statistics. What do the Government currently estimate the impact of hospital-acquired Covid infections to be, and what action are they taking to deal with it?

Lord Bethell: My noble friend is entirely right; in any epidemic, nosocomial infection is one of the greatest challenges faced. If you want to find a recent infection of Covid, the best place to find it is where there is someone already with the disease, because that is the way that epidemics work. Hospitals necessarily have a high concentration of those with the disease. It is true that during the early months of the epidemic, when there were challenges with PPE and when practices within hospitals were not as disciplined as we would have liked, nosocomial infection, as it often is in epidemics around the world and throughout history, was a big challenge in hospital care and social care. That has been extremely well documented. However, I pay tribute to colleagues in the NHS who have come  a very long way in the administration of PPE, confinement practices and infection control. The nosocomial infection that we are seeing is at dramatically lower rates than it was in the past, and that is due to the hard work and science of those in the healthcare sector.

Lord Wills: The Minister will be aware that during the first lockdown the utilisation of beds in the private sector, under its partnership agreement with the NHS, was 20%. What reassurance can the Minister give that there will not be a similar underutilisation of capacity for testing in the independent sector in the weeks and months ahead?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understood the question. In terms of the private beds that we intended to use, that capacity was extremely valuable as a fallback during the first wave, but I am pleased to say that it was not needed. There is some testing in the private sector, but we are not leaning on that at the moment. The testing that is done by the Government is through test and trace, and we are committed to using as much of that capacity as is needed.

Lord Scriven: The Statement says nothing about antibody testing. On 6 October, the noble Lord announced the £75 million single-source purchase of antibody test kits from Abingdon Health. Official correspondence, dated 1 October, reveals that the department had a report by Public Health England that shows that those antibody tests were not accurate enough for their intended use and that the department would delay publication of the report until after the Government announced that they had purchased them. Why was that, Minister?

Lord Bethell: If the noble Lord would not mind, could he repeat the question, because I could not hear the words, I am afraid?

Lord Scriven: The Statement says nothing about antibody testing. On 6 October, the noble Lord announced the £75 million single-source purchase of antibody test kits from Abingdon Health. Official correspondence, dated 1 October, reveals that the department had a report by Public Health England that shows that those antibody tests were not accurate enough for their intended use and that the department would delay publication of the report until after the Government had announced that they had been purchased. Why was that, Minister?

Lord Bethell: I am afraid I am not familiar with the report to which the noble Lord refers. I am glad to undertake to write with an answer to that question.

Lord Loomba: My Lords, it is very good news that there is now a potential vaccine that shows prospects of good efficacy. The Health Minister showed MPs in the other place that mass rollout of the vaccine would be ready to start from as early as the beginning of December, and we have placed an order for 40 million jabs. Given that the vaccine is still not approved as  100% safe or approved by the authorities, can the Minister give more information on the reality of how long it is likely to be before a safe rollout takes place?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot offer a firm schedule or confirmed dates for the rollout because they depend on the independent judgment of the MHRA, the CMO and the JCVI. These important decisions are out of our grasp, but it is clear that the progress made by Pfizer, AstraZeneca and other companies in the vaccine’s pipeline has been dramatically quicker than had initially been expected. We are making preparations to have the NHS ready for the beginning of December in case a vaccine is available by then.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, this just highlighted the key role of GPs in any vaccine rollout, but in parts of the country there is a dire shortage of GPs with, on occasion, surgeries being run by nurse practitioners and other specialist nurses to great effect. Will the Minister check that, in the absence of GPs, nurse practitioners will have, first, full authority to activate any initial planning; secondly, empowerment to undertake the necessary continuing administration for the vaccination rollout; and thirdly, current authorisation to prescribe and vaccinate applicable in any national rollout?

Lord Bethell: I thank the noble Lord for his championing of nurse practitioners, because we are going to rely on all qualified healthcare workers to administer an injection to support this huge project—one of the largest of its kind in recent national history. I also emphasise the role of pharmacists who will, where appropriate, deliver the vaccine as well. We need a massive, mass-scale effort to deliver this vaccine. We will be empowering all those qualified to deliver the injection to do so and we are extremely grateful to them, including nurse practitioners, for their help in this matter.

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: My Lords, President-elect Biden has shown refreshing leadership by setting up a panel of scientific experts to deal with Covid-19. Why, then, do the Government think that a venture capitalist married to a government Minister is best placed to chair the Vaccine Taskforce rather than an expert in vaccines?

Lord Bethell: The role of Kate Bingham, the head of the Vaccine Taskforce, has been to acquire vaccines—and that is what she has done. She has served the nation brilliantly by acquiring six of the vaccines on four of the platforms. We should be extremely grateful for the work that she has done. It was not remunerated, and it was extremely effective. To knock those who have contributed voluntarily to our fight against Covid is not appropriate at this stage.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s positive and sensitive remarks this evening, can it be confirmed that, despite SAGE advice and planning, a national mass Covid testing programme has been ruled out by No. 10 this week? If that is the case, who mandated the decision and what was the rationale for doing so?

Lord Bethell: The noble Viscount is better advised than me. As far as I understand, mass testing remains a central part of our battle against Covid and we remain committed to that programme.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, there is growing concern that the unique Pfizer vaccine, with an mRNA genetic molecule that cellular machinery reads in order to build proteins, could be incompatible with the World Anti-Doping Code for all sports men and women, including Premier League footballers and Olympic athletes. Since the World Anti-Doping Agency already bans the use of agents designed to impact genome sequences if they have the potential to enhance sport performance or provide unfair advantage, and pursuant to my noble friend’s very helpful answer yesterday, will the Government undertake to work with the World Anti-Doping Agency and offer comprehensive advice to the sporting world before any vaccine programme begins?

Lord Bethell: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for flagging up this important concern, which I acknowledge is a serious worry for those in the athletic and sporting arena. Colleagues at DCMS are aware of this concern. It is extremely early days and we do not know what the impact of the vaccine will be on the kind of protocols analysed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, but we have sought advice from the WPA on this matter and I will be happy to convey it as soon as it arrives.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, this week’s news about the vaccine has been a great uplift at a very grim time. However, rolling it out will prove a massive logistical challenge, as I think the Minister accepts, at the same time as we are trying to repair the gaps and strengthen our test and trace systems, and trying not to damage the rest of the services provided by the NHS. Does this not all require a massive upscaling of the command and control capabilities of the Government? What steps are they planning to put in place to manage this phase of the crisis more successfully than they have managed it so far?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s sentiment that the vaccine is an uplift and a source of optimism, but I hope that he will not mind if I also use this opportunity to say that the British public—all of us—must stick with the protocols that are in place at the moment. It is not early enough for us to depart from social distancing and the current regulations around the lockdown. However, his point is extremely well made. We are determined to use the respite of the current lockdown to fill the gaps, to improve performance where it is needed, to address acknowledged weaknesses in test and trace, particularly in the tracing area, and to improve our performance thoroughly. However, I do not necessarily acknowledge the need for an upscale in the command and control elements. Certainly for the administration of the vaccine, we will be working through the existing NHS infrastructure, putting GPs’ surgeries and pharmacies at the centre of delivery. Test and trace is run through existing ministerial structures, with accountability to Parliament, and we intend to keep it that way.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Statement is very positive about the quickie lateral flow tests. It refers to the pilots in Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool and the fact that mass testing will be carried out in 67 other authorities. However, the list does not appear to include Lancashire, which I thought was part of that testing. Can the Minister confirm that Lancashire is part of it, even though it has been missed off the list, and is it the whole of Lancashire or just some of the 12 districts in Lancashire? The Statement also refers to the Government’s strategy of suppressing the virus and supporting education, the economy and the NHS until a vaccine is available. That is fine but, once again, it does not home in on the people who are really suffering—close family and friends, and particularly old and vulnerable people. A recent report—released this week, I think—from the Red Cross, called Lonely and Left Behind, really shows up the misery and mental disarray that a lot of these people are in. Some have been locking themselves down and have been frightened to go out since the early spring. Does the Minister understand that, if a system of quickie testing of this kind and then vaccination are to be brought in, these people have to be treated as an absolute top priority, and that the first thing the Government have to do is to give them the confidence to take part in it?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that the 67 DPHs who are taking the tests in the first round are those who stepped forward. I believe that they include DPHs in Lancashire, but I shall be happy to confirm that. Regarding the Lonely and Left Behind report, the noble Lord put it extremely well. Of course those are the people who have been extremely hard hit by the pandemic. I hope he will acknowledge that we have put those who are older and vulnerable at the top of the prioritisation list—there has been no ambiguity about that. They will be vaccinated first and will therefore be freed from lockdown. When the vaccination is available, it will be a massive priority to get our society open again and to get the love, tenderness and support to the people whom he described—all things that are needed in order for them to have happy and fulfilled lives.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, why has my noble friend not answered my Written Questions on the following: on false-positive tests, which were due on 28 September; on the legality of using the Public Health Act for lockdown, which was due on 14 October; and, finally, on why those Questions have not been answered, which is also overdue?

Lord Bethell: I can only apologise to my noble friend for the slowness in replying to his Questions. It is not a reasonable excuse, but the Department of Health and Social Care has been overwhelmed by the pandemic. A large amount of our correspondence is behind schedule. I have worked hard to try to catch up on that, but I apologise to him sincerely for the delay. When I get back to the department tomorrow morning, I will chase it up and get him replies to his perfectly reasonable Questions.

Lord Rooker: In the fourth paragraph of the Statement, the Secretary of State boasts that over 10 million people were tested at least once through  NHS Test and Trace. The figure for the latest week, published by the Minister’s department today, is 10,800,031—a rise of 613,000 last week, or 87,600 a day. The week before, it was 88,200 a day, and the week before that it was 95,153 a day. Why are we going backwards in testing people at least once through NHS Test and Trace?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the capacity that we have in track and trace is growing dramatically; the number of tests we have taken is going up. It is true that testing demand does fluctuate. There was a moment when universities had a very large outbreak and there was a huge amount of demand from universities, and there may well be other reasons why testing demand goes up in the future. But I reassure the noble Lord that the capacity, speed and accuracy of testing in this country are making huge progress on a day-by-day basis, and I pay tribute to those involved in the project.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough: My Lords, a key factor in controlling Covid-19, with or without a vaccine, is test, trace and isolation, and I fully support that. Yet the recent survey indicated that some 20% of those asked to isolate actually failed to do so, rendering the system far less effective than it should be. What is the reasoning behind the reluctance of the Government to move from PCR to lateral flow testing for the test and trace programme, following the extensive clinical evaluations by PHE and Oxford University, which found 99.6% accuracy, including on the key criterion for track and trace of detecting asymptomatic carriers? Surely, accurate 48-hour testing would enable virus-free contacts to return to normal activity quickly, rather than sitting at home for 14 days.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right on two things, and wrong on another. He is entirely right that isolation is absolutely key—without isolation, there is no point in testing or tracing. It is true that not everyone who is asked to isolate does isolate, but we have a programme in place to try to encourage, inform and inspire people to isolate. He is entirely right that lateral flow tests offer huge advantages, in terms of the speed at which they can be used, their cost and their flexibility. But we have bought tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, of these tests in recent weeks. We are deploying them in mass testing, and we have completely followed the advice and inspiration of the noble Lord in this matter in a massive way.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, Sir John Bell, the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, has said that these inexpensive, easy-to-use lateral flow antigen tests, when used systematically, could reduce transmission by 90%. Could the Minister confirm that the trials are already showing that these tests are picking up 75% of positive cases and 95% in the most infectious individuals? If that is the case, when can we have these millions of tests that Ministers have spoken about deployed, not only in the NHS, care homes, schools and universities but at airports, factories, offices, workplaces, theatres and even sports grounds, so that we can get our economy back firing on all cylinders very soon?

Lord Bethell: As ever, I am inspired by the noble Lord’s passion for this subject. He has totally won the argument in this matter, because we are putting into the field millions of tests, as he recommended and continues to champion. The pilot in Liverpool is extremely exciting, and the tests themselves are proving both easy to administer and accurate in their diagnosis. We are working on ways of using these tests in a mass testing capacity. Universities and social care are two user cases that we have prioritised, and we are looking at using the lessons of Liverpool in other areas. In all matters, we continue to be inspired by the noble Lord.

Baroness Pidding: My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the news regarding a possible vaccine and shall look forward to hearing more in the coming weeks. At last, we have some light at the end  of a very dark tunnel. With lockdown 2 expiring on 2 December, it is critical that businesses are able to make plans now for post the release date, especially with Christmas looming so close. Can my noble friend the Minister give an indication as to what the plans are for after this date? We understand that tiers will be reintroduced. Will those tiers stick to the same measures we had before in each tier? How will different tiering be determined and, most importantly, at what point will businesses be advised?

Lord Bethell: My noble friend is right that the advice to business is extremely important, and we are ambitious to try to unlock the economy to enable people to return to as normal a life as they possibly can and to prepare the country for Christmas. However, it is too early to tell exactly what the state of the pandemic will be on 2 December. There is a review of the tiering system, and we will learn the lessons of the last round. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is committed to returning to a regional tiering system, but the exact dimensions and specifications of that system are under review, and communication to business of how, and to which regions, it will apply will be forthcoming once the analysis of the contagion has been completed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I return to the Statement made by the Secretary of State, in which he said, referring to NHS staff:
“The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/20; cols. 746.]
The noble Lord will be aware that the GMC granted temporary registration to around 27,000 doctors in order to help out with the pandemic crisis. My question is: has the department considered using these doctors, not many of whom have actually been used by the NHS so far, for the vaccine programme? Will he look into that?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. We pay tribute to all those who stepped forward, whether they were young doctors at the end of their training or older doctors who were returning to the profession. It was a really important and touching moment when those doctors stepped forward. He is right that not all of them were needed  or used during the pandemic. My understanding, from the deployment team, is that they are looking at all avenues to have the largest army of people possible in order to use the vaccine. I am not exactly sure of the exact status of the 27,000 doctors he alluded to, but I would be glad to write to him with details.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, according to local media, on Tuesday the city of Leicester—I live in Leicestershire—recorded the highest number of infections since the beginning of the pandemic. Leicester has been locked down since June, so could my noble friend confirm that this is the case, and, if it is, could he say whether this has happened because we do not know very much about the virus, whether it is the case that lockdowns do not work—as some people say—or is he going to blame the good people of Leicester for not abiding by the regulations?

Lord Bethell: I greatly thank the people of Leicester for their patience with the lockdown and with the very large number of measures that have been put in place there. The noble Lord is aware that some communities live and work very close to each other, and the transmission of the disease is affected by a very large number of factors. I cannot explain to him exactly why the infection rates are so high in Leicester today, but I absolutely applaud all those who have been working hard in that city to keep the epidemic at bay.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, following on from the last question, recent evidence shows that the north of England has been affected hardest by Covid-19 in terms of infections and deaths, caused mainly in hospitality settings. Compliant citizens are upset by the minority who flout the law. When the lockdown ends on 2 December, restrictions such as wearing masks and distancing will be only as effective as the public’s compliance. As the police cannot be in every pub, shop or restaurant, is it not time for the enforcement of such measures to be done by the venue itself, with the ultimate sanction of immediate closure by the police or local authority for wilful non-compliance?

Lord Bethell: The noble Lord is completely reasonable in his concerns but that is not the approach we are taking at the moment. Actually, public support for the lockdown measures—the wearing of masks, social distancing and restrictions on travel—has been amazing. Lockdown has been largely by consent and extremely well supported by the public in their behaviour. We are extremely proud that in Britain we do not need the Army on the street with their guns or the police fining people on the street, as they do in other countries. I pay tribute to the British public for the way in which they have gone along with those measures. The noble Lord makes the point that some people have been in breach of the rules and there have been prosecutions and fines. However, they have been minimal and have had their effect. We will continue to operate at the kind of level at which we have been operating to date.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of my interest in the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Will he update the  House on where we are with the vaccination programme for the over-50s? What use will be made of dispensing doctors in rural areas to dispense the Covid-19 vaccine? I hope he will rely on them fully because they have the network to provide it in much the same way as the noble Lord, Clark, explained.

Lord Bethell: My noble friend will be aware of the prioritisation list published by the JVCI. I am afraid that the over-50s, of which I am a member, are not highest on the list, but they are at least halfway down. Prioritisation starts with the over-80s and works down from there. I completely endorse my noble friend’s  comments on dispensing doctors. We will be relying on all parts of the healthcare ecology to deliver the vaccine. It will be a massive national project. Getting to hard-to-reach rural communities is incredibly important, particularly people in those communities who are older and perhaps do not travel. Dispensing doctors pay a pivotal role in that, and I pay tribute to their contribution to the vaccine.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, the time allotted for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.
House adjourned at 7.01 pm.